British swimming pool bars father and son from its 'Muslim-only' swimming session

This was put down to a "misunderstanding" and there was no action taken against the "misunderstanders" -- but imagine the retribution if a Muslim had been banned

A father and his five-year-old son were turned away from their local swimming pool because they were the wrong religion. David Toube, 39, and his son Harry were told that the Sunday morning session was reserved for Muslim men only. Hackney Council, which runs the Clissold Leisure Centre in Stoke Newington, north London, claimed staff there had made a mistake. However, the Muslim-only session was advertised on its website.

Mr Toube, a corporate lawyer, described his experiences on a blog. "I arrived at the pool to discover that they were holding what staff described to me as "Muslim men only swimming"," he wrote. "I asked whether my son and I could go as we were both male. I was told that the session was for Muslims only and that we could not be admitted. I asked what would happen if I turned up and insisted I was Muslim. "The manager suggested that they might ask the Muslims swimming if they minded my son and I swimming with them. If they didn't object, we might be allowed in."

A few days later, Mr Toube, who lives with his wife, 38-year-old barrister Samantha, and their two sons in Stoke Newington, North London, spoke to another leisure centre employee. "He gave me an identical story. His explanation was that it was a requirement of the Muslim religion that Muslims could not swim with non-Muslims." Mr Toube joked: "I asked him whether Clissold Leisure Centre would institute Whites Only swimming for racists. His answer was that they would if there was sufficient demand."

He added: "I spoke to a number of Muslim friends, and none of them had heard of a religious prohibition on swimming with non-Muslims. "One friend was so disgusted with Hackney for trying to segregate Muslims and non Muslims that he suggested that he take his little daughter swimming with us, just to prove the point."

However, Dr Taj Hargey, chair of the Muslim Education Centre of Oxford, said it was not true that Muslims could not swim with non-Muslims. "There is no Koranic verse or any statement from the sources of Islam that says different religions should be segregated," he said. "The only requirement is that when women swim they should be modestly clad." The Prophet Mohammed is recorded as saying that it is a Muslim's duty to learn to swim as it could save his or her life.

The swimming sessions for male Muslims were advertised as taking place every Sunday from 8am to 9.30am. Leaflets stipulated: "It is compulsory for the body to be covered between the navel and the knees. "Anyone not adhering to the dress code or rules within the pool will not be allowed to swim. All brothers welcome.'

A leisure centre spokesman said staff were wrong to refuse entry to Mr Toube. He added: "The member of staff the user spoke with at the time was mistaken when referring to the session as Muslim-only. "The men's modesty session is not a private hire and is, therefore, open to the public. "Staff cannot ask your religion on entrance and you won't be refused entry if you don't appear to be Muslim."

A spokesman for the Equality and Human Rights Commission said: "Segregating services may amount to unlawful discrimination and could create a sense of unfairness, inadvertently increasing community tension."

Source



UK Muslim Airport Porters Refuse to Handle Israeli Luggage

This outrageous story from e-mailer Beryl Dean has been verified and is absolutely true:

My friend Miriam Bedein traveled to Britain early in April. She arrived on British Air from Israel, and as she arrived at the baggage claim, she observed that there were no porters at the site.

She asked what was happening of the gentleman who was taking her to the baggage carousel, and he said "Ooh, the porters are Muslim and they will not handle any luggage coming from Israel" (In Britain, the porters take the luggage off the carousels and take them to your cab, etc.) While it was not his job, the gentleman was kind enough to get her luggage for her.

She is writing British Air about this incident, asking why they tolerate, and what they are doing about, this unacceptable situation. I urge my readers to write, particularly to British Air and Heathrow Ariport. But I have another solution, as well: DON'T GO TO BRITAIN.

It's essentially a Muslim Nation--Dar Al-Islam. Let them have halal bangers and mash all they want, but not our dollars. This situation is in place, because--as with all things--the Brits kowtow to Islam and have allowed this intolerable behavior

Source



Loathing for one's own kind

A friend emailed me today with the subject "Loathing for one's own kind". He gave me permission to publish on condition that his name not be used. He did ask me to leave out part of it, even though he couldn't be identified, because he's concerned about employment. (This is what a pass we've come to, that expressing your opinions can get you fired. More evidence that increasing diversity means decreasing freedoms.) He wrote:

As I was riding to work a few minutes ago, I heard Garrison Keillor on his Writers Almanac radio show read a poem that made me sick. I don't think I've ever heard such loathing for America. White America, that is, because the white American poet excludes blacks and immigrants from her disdain. Note especially the stanzas that start "You can see it in their white faces at the supermarket..."

The poem he refers to is here. It begins:

The puzzled ones, the Americans, go through their lives Buying what they are told to buy, Pursuing their love affairs with the automobile,

What follows is the usual leftist whining about the shallowness of ordinary people who actually enjoy life, written of course in free, unrhymed verse, the only kind untalented poets seem to be capable of. (And by arranging it into stanzas of three lines each, it becomes "poetry".) Further on, we read:

You can see it in their white faces at the supermarket and the gas station - Not the immigrant faces, they know what they want, Not the blacks, whose faces are hurt and proud -

The white faces, lipsticked, shaven, we do try To keep smiling, for when we're smiling, the whole world Smiles with us, but we feel we've lost

That loving feeling. Clouds ride by above us, Rivers flow, toilets work, traffic lights work, barring floods, fires And earthquakes, houses and streets appear stable

So what is it, this moon-shaped blankness? What the hell is it? America is perplexed. We would fix it if we knew what was broken.

See, it's us white folks that are the problem. For all the complaining that I (and others like me) do about mass immigration and the various social pathologies which certain minorities have in abundance, America wouldn't be in the predicament that it is without those whites who, like the "poet" just cited, "loathe their own kind". Much has been made, for example, about the anti-white racism of Barack Obama's pastor Jeremiah Wright, and by extension, Obama himself, but most of Obama's supporters are white. Most of them are, I imagine, simply deluded into thinking that a charismatic black man is a cool choice for president, but many of them must be like our poet. The Ice People are simply unworthy of ethnic solidarity, unworthy of having a nation to themselves, not only because they are all closet racists, but because they have no soul.

Source



Our Racist Selves?

Nicholas Kristof writes in the NY Times:

To my horror, I turn out to be a racist. The University of Chicago offers an on-line psychological test in which you encounter a series of 100 black or white men, holding either guns or cellphones. You're supposed to shoot the gunmen and holster your gun for the others.

I shot armed blacks in an average of 0.679 seconds, while I waited slightly longer - .694 seconds - to shoot armed whites. Conversely, I holstered my gun more quickly when encountering unarmed whites than unarmed blacks.

Take the test yourself and you'll probably find that you show bias as well. Most whites and many blacks are more quick to shoot blacks, no matter how egalitarian they profess to be.

Naturally Kristof takes the whole thing at face value; not only in that it shows that many people (virtually everyone?) harbor latent racial prejudice, but in that shooting at armed blacks more quickly than shooting at armed whites - mind you, in an online test - is ipso facto evidence of racism. Kristof "shot" blacks 15 milliseconds faster than whites. So did James Collier:

In reality, the stereotype at play here, black men as more dangerous, is accurate and the heightened sensitivity this brings is only natural, and would, on average, aid those who might otherwise add themselves to the wrong end of the homicide statistics.

Source



Australia: New Aboriginal organization a 'white man's dream'

Just another gravy train for Leftist parasites, in fact

A new national Aboriginal organisation is "a white man's dream", says indigenous leader Warren Mundine. The former ALP national president has also described Labor policy guaranteeing a new representative body as "a big challenge" for the Rudd Government. Mr Mundine said he would strenuously argue against the reintroduction of a large taxpayer-funded elected body, such as the abolished Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, supported by its own bureaucracy. He said the idea of an indigenous assembly was popular among academics, intellectuals and sections of the indigenous leadership, but "that's a white man's dream", he said. "I don't think there's much grassroots support for it."

While indigenous leaders such as South Australia's Commissioner for Aboriginal Engagement, Klynton Wanganeen, have argued Aboriginal people have been robbed of representation at regional, national and international level, Mr Mundine said the abolition of ATSIC meant "sweet bugger all" to most Aboriginal people and it was more important to develop leaders and entrepreneurs in Aboriginal communities.

Continuing his attack on the idea, which is expected to be prominent at the 2020 Summit, Mr Mundine said talk about a new peak body would distract from discussion about the crisis gripping Aboriginal Australia, including high levels of child trauma and illiteracy, as well as the economic opportunities presented by a minerals boom occurring on Aboriginal land.

It is Labor policy to establish "a national representative body and regional representative structures for indigenous Australians", to "empower indigenous Australians to hold all levels of government to account through this national body and regional structures". But Kevin Rudd responded coolly to the push for a new body. The Prime Minister said 2020 delegates should feel free to discuss the issue, but the Government's view of ATSIC was clear.

Brendan Nelson was scathing, saying "we've already had that experiment and it failed". The Opposition Leader said that during the ATSIC years "the money intended for Aboriginal people was like a whale carcass dragged through a pool of sharks". "A bit was taken out at every step of the way before it got to the people for whom it was intended," Dr Nelson said.

Wesley Aird, a member of the Howard government's National Indigenous Council, which replaced ATSIC as a forum for indigenous advice, said he feared the outcome of the summit was "as predictable as a Zimbabwean election". "The issue of Aboriginal Australia at the moment is disadvantage; the issue is not representation," he said. "They just get it so back to front all the time. "I think what we're going to hear this weekend is a pleading to return to the past, which is quite unfortunate. At some stage we're just going to have to say the old days weren't that good, there was abuse and disadvantage under ATSIC, it's not going to change if we reinvent anything like it, let's move on."

Source

*************************

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there are mirrors of this site here and here.

***************************