Well honestly. I personally don't blame them, agreed the excuse is a bit feeble "in the interests of personal hygiene" – since when did the kermits care about that?

OK, we see these contraptions in Jakarta where busana muslim is this seasons fashion and more to the point, the wearer wishes to have a splash without coming out of the water looking like a piece of well-done sirloin ten minutes later, but in this case it is nothing more than "let's be a pain in the clacker because I can" (she looks a miserable looking old bag as well) .

Not often I agree with the French, but I reckon they did the right thing – if she wants to wear that thing, then wear it in the shower.

Try "France is a predominantly non-Muslim country"

When in Rome etc.

Try reading a bible walking down the street in Saudi and see what happens, if you don't like it, don't live there.

Free expression is it? Well do it at home, and for what it is worth, anyone who wants to let their gusset hang out all over the shop in Indonesia, should also consider doing it at home.

I see their point, imagine the state of the gusset after a few weeks.

And why is it that all these women who insist on wearing full body armour are so horrendous? Does this women really think anyone will dribble over her? 

Patung:

As I see it, unless the pool had clearly demarcated rules about attire before the woman came in, it's discriminatory.  If they did, then that's another story.  But either way it's a civil rights issue.  The US has its problems, but its unwavering defense of free expression, particularly when it comes to religion, is one of its strongest points.  It applies evenly to all, and is only infringed upon in extreme cases where religious expression is found not to trump the already existing secular law of the country.

Suryo:

That's kind of a poor argument.  Saudi is a theocratic monarchy.  France is a liberal democracy, and should be judged as such.  Not comparable.  On top of that, when you say "at home, " whose home is it, exactly?  Indonesia is a Pancasila state, not an Islamic one.  By legislating on behalf of the self-consciously Islamic constituency, Indonesia is potentially changing the definition of who it is "home" for.  Given that it is a democracy that still operates under the banner of Pancasila, this is dangerous.  

France is a "republican state," where there are not supposed to be any rules respecting any ethnicity or religion, or infringing on the rights of citizens to free expression of these.  France still does a good job on the former, but seems to be slipping on the latter.    

Last I heard, dyslexic aardvarks with halitosis still can't become citizens of the Republic of France.  Maybe those without it?  Or those that can read without major issue? Regardless, it's perhaps unfortunate that they don't fall under any of said republic's laws governing the right to free expression.  

…and you can count me among those who have lived in the UK.  So who are "those people," then?  And why might "they" be living unproblematically as immigrants in other countries?  Assuming it's "the Muslims" you're talking about, I'd suggest taking a look at this, particularly the end:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/206230

Isn't it just a case of a local swimming pool telling her to bugger off, it's not a law or government policy. If it's a privately owned pool then there's no issue as I see, they can make their own rules and if they want to shut out a segment of the market well that's up to them, but if it's government owned then they're on less firm ground. Depends

Well I hardly see them going broke losing madam as a customer – next thing she will be insisting they take the bacon GoldenWonders out of the snack shop.

And I don't see there being a problem even if the pool is state run – the Franch won't put up with that sort of old cobblers, unfortunately the Brits have already rolled over on this, next thing the Queen will be in a Jilbab

Doesn't have to be – they have determined that she is "troubling the public order" – by wearing a religious symbol whilst swimming, is she implying that her fellow swimmers would otherwise be liable to rip her trollies off if they saw her in the flesh? (looking at her mug, I seriously doubt it).

How about http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..sroom.html  – do you think they were right?

Yes, that's the one.

Here is another classic, championed by that spanner faced old bag – Ms Cherie Blair (of course at tax payers expense).

Thanks god the law lords saw fit to pass a sensible judgement – enough compromises have been made, effectively this girl already attended a full muslim state school, but that wasn't enough, despite the fact that she already knew the dress code at this school, but wanted something different.

Was this a girl asserting her rights, or was she just being a pain in the arse for the sake of it?

The French and the Dutch have come under fire for their banning of religious garb and parahpenalia, now, (http://education.guardian.co.u…..82,00.html) the Brits have taken a shot across the bows of religious dress in public schools.

The House of Lords yesterday overturned an appeal court ruling that a Muslim teenager's human rights were violated when she was banned from wearing a head-to-toe Islamic dress to school.
The unanimous ruling by five law lords was greeted with relief by teachers' bodies and the Department for Education and Skills, which feared that upholding the ruling would throw schools' policies on uniforms into chaos.

Shabina Begum, 17, argued that banning her from wearing the jilbab at Denbigh high school in Luton, Bedfordshire, breached her rights to education and to manifest her religion, as guaranteed by the European convention on human rights. She lost two years' schooling before moving to a school which allowed her to wear the religious garb.

But the law lords said there was no right to be educated at a particular school, and she could have moved earlier to a single-sex school where the garment would be unnecessary or to a school where it was permitted.

Shabina had worn the shalwar kameez (tunic and trousers) for her first two years at the school, but when she was nearly 13 she went to school in a jilbab. Shabina, who was represented on legal aid by Cherie Booth QC and the Children's Legal Centre, said after the judgment: "Obviously I am saddened and disappointed about this, but I am quite glad it is all over and I can move on now. Even though I lost, I have made a stand."

She said she would be discussing with her lawyers whether to take the case to the European court of human rights.

Suryo said:

Doesn't have to be – they have determined that she is "troubling the public order" – by wearing a religious symbol whilst swimming, is she implying that her fellow swimmers would otherwise be liable to rip her trollies off if they saw her in the flesh? (looking at her mug, I seriously doubt it).

UNfortunately, the French Constitution stipulates that there has to be a law on the books.  From the passage I quoted above:

Any thing which is not warded [i.e., forbidden] by the law cannot be impeded, and no one can be constrained to do what it [i.e., the law] does not order.

@ Patung – yes, that is the way it has gone now in the UK, and the road is paved for two faced old bags like Cherie to make a fortune out of it.

@ Odinius – yes, quite, very worthy. Except that if she is deemed to be offending the public decency and order then they can do what they want – there doesn't have to be a specific "burkini" law.

If a private swimming pool has clearly posted rules about dress, which many do, it is not a violation of religious freedom to ask all swimmers to adhere to them.  If this French pool did as well, then I have no problem with it.  But if it did not, and then booted the woman for her religious expression, then I do have a problem with it.  

Seems to me like the owner of the water park is reserving his right to refuse admission – it's his party and he'll cry if he wants to.

Hehehe, how about this….?