Muslim Children Ejected From Public Pool for Flouting an Unwritten Swimwear Rule

The modestly dressed kids supposedly ran afoul of a previously unenforced cotton ban.


Screenshot via Delaware Online

The staff at a public pool in Wilmington, Delaware, recently ejected modestly dressed Muslim children who ran afoul of an unpublicized and possibly nonexistent rule against cotton swimwear.

Kids enrolled in the Darul-Amaanah Academy's Arabic Enrichment Program, a summer day camp, have been using Wilmington's Foster Brown Pool for 4 years. In accordance with their Muslim faith, they wear cotton shorts, shirts, and headscarves. That attire was never an issue until this summer when the city decided to enforce a ban on cotton swimwear without notifying pool visitors of the rule.

"There's nothing that's posted that says you can't swim in cotton," camp director Tasihyn Ismaa'eel told Delaware Online. "If it's a rule, it's never been enforced." At the pool, the only attire that was explicitly banned was "cut-off jeans."

Last week, the pool employees asked Ismaa'eel and her campers to leave, initially citing the swimwear rule before switching rationales and claiming the pool was at full capacity. Pool staff eventually enlisted the help of a police officer who was parked outside. The Independent reports that the officer pressured the campers to leave, claiming that people were "outside waiting" to use the pool.

Naveed Baqir, executive director of the Delaware Council on Global and Muslim Affairs, told Delaware Online such incidents are familiar in his community. Years ago, he faced similar discrimination as he tried to swim in a public pool with his legs covered. "For my own children, I'd rather pay the money and be treated like everyone else rather than putting myself in an anxiety situation," he said. Like Baqir, many Muslims in Wilmington use private pools, such as one in Elkton, Maryland, about 20 miles away.

Wilmington Mayor Mike Purzycki was at first unsympathetic to the campers, saying everyone should wear "proper swimming attire." Facing pressure from local critics, Purzycki retracted his initial comments. "We should be held accountable for what happened and how poorly we assessed the incident," he said in a statement the following Saturday. "We also referred to vaguely worded pool policies to assess and then justify our poor judgment in reacting to it, and that was wrong."

Ismaa'eel said some of her students come from low-income households and cannot afford religious swimwear made of approved fabrics such as nylon. As a result of the publicity surrounding this incident, Darul-Amaanah Academy has received offers to cover the expense.

NEXT: Baltimore Bans Soda in Kids' Meals

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Eventually, a police officer who was parked outside was killed by pool staff to get involved

    Don’t fuck with the pool staff.

    1. You’ll only do it once.

    2. I was hit with a pool staff once, you better believe those suckers can be deadly.

    3. Seems like a good reason to NOT go to the pool.

    4. I’m laughing so hard at this image. I’m imagining the pool staff as some Predator-esque hunter, holding the head of a police officer to make shit real.

      This intern has validated his whole internship with that sentence.

    5. Pool Staff was my nickname at the Swim Meet.

  2. Sorry to be late to the argument, but why is it bad to swim in cotton?

    1. Not bad? Dude, a cop died.

    2. The lint clogs the filters.

      1. Ah, okay.

        1. The real/possible reasons are varied. Cotton is heavier and doesn’t cling as well so increases the chances of people getting caught up and drowning and/or stumbling on the deck. Off-the-shelf cotton clothing isn’t necessarily designed to be soaked in chlorine and can leach dyes while specifically-designed and nylon clothing in general does not. Also, and probably not the least, only poor people swim in their street clothes.

          1. When we were kids all we had were blue jean cut offs and thats what we swam in

            1. When we were kids all we had were blue jean cut offs and thats what we swam in

              Where I grew up, you wore your street clothes to the creek/lake/pit and made fun of the kids who had to change into their swimsuits or wouldn’t get in the water because they didn’t have a swimsuit and their mom wouldn’t let them get their clothes wet.

                1. He must be under 35. It was in the 80s that it became a big deal for males to see each other naked.

        1. That’s not a good enough reason for the government to not offer an accommodation.

      2. So it’s entirely possible that race/color/religion/etc/adinfinitum had nothing to do with this particular outrage! at all. And you’d think that if “such incidents are familiar in his community” we’d have actually heard of one before now. Especially since every newspaper in America has a daily outrage! feature story just like this one.

        1. Yeah – it doesn’t comport well with the statement that this group has been using this pool for four years and this summer was the first time it ever came up.

      3. The lint clogs the filters.

        Interestingly, the private pools don’t have a policy against cotton, only the public pool. My guess, having the experience with maintenance of public facilities that I do, is that what maintenance staff the public pool has basically never even looks at that filter until the pump breaks, while the private pool probably has a regular maintenance regime where it doesn’t matter whether people wear cotton or not.

        1. I think you’re basically right, but I’d put it a little differently. The overworked, minimal staff at the public pool wants to be able to go as long as possible without cleaning the filters, and they know cotton clothing clogs it up quicker. The private pool also probably has customers that are paying more than the public pool charges and aren’t accustomed to getting orders from the help.

          1. Fair enough. I see all that, but tend to shorthand it as “public maintenance sucks.”

            The fact tends to be that maintenance budgets are woefully inadequate, and maintenance staff lack the resources, experience and training to deal with things effectively. A school district I just came off of working at had only one plumber district-wide, for example, who was responsible for 30 school sites.

            At that point, your job just becomes crisis-management, not preventative maintenance.

            It just comes back to my (and many here’s) fundamental criticism of government enterprises – it’s not about whether or not the people are any good – it’s the structure of the system itself that screws things up.

    3. Racism. They only want to discriminate against white cotton (NSFW).

      1. The guy holding the hose should not be the center of attention in a wet T-shirt contest.

        1. It should be pretty clear that the photo lacks focus in at least a couple senses of the word.

      2. Our big prize tonite is fifty american dollars to the girl with the most exciting mammalian protube

        1. Zappa? Joe’s Garage?

          Or is Hihn’s dementia rubbing off?

      3. Mad.casual, that looks like my kind of Tu B’Av dance party?

  3. a police officer who was parked outside was killed by pool staff to get involved

    Now that’s extremism!

  4. In accordance with their Muslim faith, they wear cotton

    cannot afford religious swimwear made of approved fabrics such as nylon.

    So, the Prophet approved *nylon*?

    1. I… think… it means the city approves nylon. Mohammed was apparently only down with cotton. Which is now more expensive than nylon (?).

      And what’s with the kid in the pic? He’s not covering very much at all!

      1. Mohammed was apparently only down with cotton.

        The text of the Law can only be applied to fabrics that existed at the time. The Prophet could not have anticipated fabrics that would be invented in the future.

        Plus, at the time, you didn’t want to cross Big Cotton.

    2. Shit, I meant to question the idea that nylon is more expensive than cotton. I don’t think it is.

      Yeah, this whole story confused the hell out of me.

      1. I think it is a safety issue. Cotton absorbs water. Swiming in head to toe cotton would probably cause you to drown unless you were one hell of a swimmer. And when one of these kids does drown, it will be the pool’s fault for letting them swim in cotton.

        1. That’s a pretty good motivation. And I’m guessing the reason there’s no sign posted about it is who the hell swims in cotton anyway?!

        2. That’s not a good enough reason for the government to forbid them from swimming however they see fit. You’re pulling a reverse Gay Jay.

          1. If it’s a legitimate public safety issue then how do you accommodate them? Refuse to pay out any liability claims?

            1. I’m not convinced that the public safety aspect outweighs the violation of one’s religious practices. We allow Sikhs to carry daggers in public buildings, in accordance with their faith, and that could also be disallowed due to the public safety aspect.

              I’m not convinced that public safety comes before liberty.

              1. I wouldn’t be convinced either except any accidents are going to covered by the contents of my wallet.

                1. I’m not trying to be dismissive here but your argument sounds similar to the progressive talking point that “Any accidents committed by a fire arm are born by taxpayers or if we don’t force everyone to purchase health insurance than taxpayers will still end up paying when they get sick”.

                  I think the argument that the government is making here is extraordinarily weak. Liberty is messy and yes, sometimes guaranteeing the individual rights of others costs taxpayers. Just like when a controversial speaker gives a talk it costs taxpayers to provide police protection in order to guarantee his right to speak on public lands.

                  1. I wish that Reason would discuss these issues when it involves other faiths besides Muslims, because these are universal concepts and a lot of different faiths are constantly seeing their rights being violated by governments that are increasingly hostile to people of faith.

                    1. ^ This. I come across distressingly few people who care about religious freedom for both Muslims and Christians.

                    2. Fuck the Parsis, though – they’re just wrong.

                    3. I thought that Donald Trump’s proposed Muslim ban and Gary Johnson’s “religious liberty is a black hole” were both disqualifying factors in why I could not vote for either. I don’t fault anyone for voting for them, but I couldn’t based upon my principles. I do believe that religious accommodation is an exceptionally important matter if we are to maintain a pluralist society.

                      I agree that it is unbelievably depressing to see that few defend the religious rights of all faiths. Reason seems to have embraced the progressive mantra of selective religious liberty. Others have endorsed the reverse, but for Christians.

                      Both sides don’t realize that an infringement of ones rights will inevitably lead to the infringement of the other’s rights.

                    4. Reason seems to have embraced the progressive mantra of selective religious liberty. Others have endorsed the reverse, but for Christians.

                      I think a big part of this is just how poisoned the national conversation has become, where it seems so rare for people to listen to one another and so common to take what the other person has said and twist it into the most awful thing you can manage to.

                      Witness the way that if Tony is here, and you defend Christian religious liberty even a little bit, he hears “let’s round up the gays and wipe them out.”

                      While there are many who if you defend religious liberty for Muslims they start screaming that the next step is living under Sharia.

                      I do think reason several years stopped trying to appeal to conservatives and tacked towards trying to pull in #walkaway Democrats, and the religious freedom articles trended away from focusing on Christian issues and towards focusing on Muslim issues.

          2. Since when do people have a right to endanger themselves in a public pool?

            1. Are you going to come out in favor of seatbelt laws next?

            2. They should ban swimming all together. The risk of drowning while wearing cotton clothing is completely dwarfed by the prior risk of drowning while swimming at all.

              1. Honestly, swimming is a pretty stupid thing to do. The risk is quite high for a recreational activity.

                1. The risk???

                  Anyway, I learned early on that the only fun things in life were those that involved an element of risk.

        3. Swiming in head to toe cotton would probably cause you to drown unless you were one hell of a swimmer.

          This doesn’t exactly justify it for the public pool, IMO. Where it makes sense is snags and tangles. If the pool can’t hire lifeguards because they’re worried about getting tangled up in a heavy, wet, cotton burqa, either no one swims or you lose the cotton burqa for some more reasonable accommodation.

        4. This is nuts, John. If you can swim you can swim fully dressed in cotton. It might slow you down a bit. The only real risk is hypothermia from “unintentionally swimming” in cold weather and then being exposed to the elements in soaked cotton

          1. WTF? Cotton is heavy and bulky when wet. It certainly does not follow that “if you can swim you can swim fully dressed in cotton”, especially for children.

            It’s also, as was pointed out earlier, baggy and can snag on things.

            1. The old life guard tests were to throw you in the deep end wearing cotton sweatpants and sweatshirt and survive for ten minutes…

              Most divers practice in cotton sweatshirts…

          2. When I was in boy scouts, the boating instructor taught us that the first thing we have to do if we end up in water unexpectedly was remove our outer garments to prevent them from weighing us down. Street clothes are a liability in a lake or ocean. In the swimming pool, it’s risky but probably not deadly.

            1. Nowadays, no Boy Scout is getting anywhere near the water without a life jacket.

        5. No. Just . . . no.

          Yes, wet cotton is heavier than wet nylon. No, unless you’re so weak you can barely stand, swimming even on cotton streetwear is not dangerous.

          I’m a fat guy and I’ve swum in the surf with full clothes and boots on. Hard to do, was in no danger. Certainly not going to be in a pool setting.

          And the lint justification is bullshit too. Cutoffs are not allowed because the *frayed strings* from the cut part can, in large enough quantities, clog filters. But cotton clothes on their own are not shedding enough *lint* to cause problems.

          Its sad to see everyone here justifying thos bullshit simply because its Muslims downrange.


  6. Whats wrong with cotton swimwear?

    1. I see its answered above

  7. “Eventually, a police officer who was parked outside was killed by pool staff to get involved .”

    Let’s see how long that sentence stays up.

    1. Probably forever. The damned Bananarchists here at reason love a good cop killing.

  8. Crazy and not that uncommon in the fake liberal order of Europe.

    An incident around swimming pools happened in NYC a little while back where the City no longer wanted to accommodate Orthodox Jewish women who aren’t allowed to swim with men in the pool (according to their custom).…..-swimming/

    1. How do you accommodate them without infringing on everyone else’s rights? I am a taxpayer and I don’t want single-sex hours for pools. Don’t my rights count as well or am I just supposed to take it up the ass because they matter and I don’t?

      1. Congrats. You just used the gun control argument “what about my right to safety”.

        Individual rights trump the petty concerns of the community, unless the government has a compelling interest to violate those rights.

        1. What about his individual right to swim at the hour of his choice?

          1. Where does such a natural right derive from?

            1. Where does such a natural right derive from?

              The fact that it’s a public pool.

        2. Congrats. You just used the gun control argument “what about my right to safety”.

          I don’t think that’s quite analogous.

          What John is saying is that he has just as much right to use the public pool as anybody. If someone has a religious prohibition against sharing the pool with John, it’s not John who needs to get out of the pool.

          Now if the facility rents to private groups, and the private group wants to have a private affair where they let only women swim, fine. Demanding that the public pool be closed to men because their religion won’t let them swim with men is them violating other people’s rights.

          1. I understand the point that you and John are making, but religious accommodation is a bedrock principle of American liberalism.

            Today it’s public pools and tomorrow it’s forcing Amish children to attend public schools (remember it was a lawsuit to allow Amish children to not be forced into public schools which made it possible for others to home school). So much has been gained due to religious accommodation and in the long run focusing on the dollar and cents of the matter will end up being used against other rights.

            I’m not suggesting that the City or anyone arguing on behalf of the City is motivated by animus. I just think most people have become indifferent toward people who want to live their faith as they see fit.

            1. Today it’s public pools and tomorrow it’s forcing Amish children to attend public schools

              No, I don’t think this is a slippery-slope thing. It’s one person’s rights versus another’s. Saying “you can’t take control over a public pool and impose your religious standards on everyone else there” is not on the same continuum as “you must attend educational centers that teach you that your religion is wrong.”

              At the very least, there is a slope going the other direction that says “everyone in the pool must cover up because Muslims might show up” or “we have to stop teaching evolution because we might offend Amish people.”

              It’s about striking balances, not tossing things aside because of the extremes they might hypothetically be taken to.

            2. If it’d been about forcing Muslims to swim in public pools, then you’d’ve had a good argument.

          2. The question in the article is whether they should even be allowed at all to have woman only swim at any point. Do you believe that they should be able to do this?

            1. Yes.

              There are multiple ways that the City could accommodate this. Either to provide extra hours for swimming when the pool is usually closed or some other scheme. They’ve done this in the past according to the article, so I don’t understand why it would be so hard now.

              1. My question was to Square = Circle.

                I don’t know an answer to how much religious accommodation a public situation can allow. In the Orthodox Jewish woman question though, it was accommodation already supplied whose existence was being legally challenged. And that changes the cantor of that one. The story tells nothing of “DEMANDS BEING MADE”, simply that there was a population who requested some accommodation and it was met, no fuss no muss. And I see nothing wrong with that at all. The law did not force a change, the managers of a pool did. Even if the pool was public, if public pools are going to exist delegating this conversation to that level of interaction is preferable to escalating to city level/state level/federal level law.

            2. Do you believe that they should be able to do this?

              Honestly, I think this is the sort of thing that should be left up to local communities. Is there a significant Orthodox population in the community that everyone agrees ought to be able to use the pool? Is there a significant community of people that’s being forbidden to use the pool because they’re not abiding by the first group’s religious rules?

              If there’s a women-only swim hour, is it okay to have a men’s-only swim hour?

              I’m mostly just saying that if there’s a religious-liberty question here, it’s the religious liberty of the people who are being told they can’t use the public pool because of someone else’s religion rather than you yourself choosing not to use the public pool because you cannot do so within the confines of your own religion.

              1. Of course any time there’s a taxpayer-provided facility it can be taken farther. What about those who want to swim there nude?

            3. Points to BUCS, who seems to be the only one to have read the article and understood that the issue was the opposite of how Just Say’n portrayed it.

      2. Go gender fluid.

        1. Oh, shit?they can’t win. If they don’t allow women with penises they’ll get sued again.

      3. By that logic, New York City public bathrooms should be mixed-sex … oh wait, nevermind.

  9. OK, so it turns out swimming while wearing cotton isn’t a good idea.

    Is there a nonracist, nonislamophobic way of embodying this insight in pool policy?

    1. You, of all people here Eddy, should understand that the government must accommodate religious expressions of faith unless their is a compelling interest to not. The “dangers of cotton” provided doesn’t cut it anymore than the military originally forbidding Sikhs from growing beards in the military.

      1. That’s a very good point.

        I hope these guys have a RFRA. Let me check.

        1. Couldn’t find a Delaware RFRA.

          It would be nice to get Smith (Scalia’s biggest mistake) overruled.

          Right now, as far as the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the First Amendment is concerned, it’s OK to step on someone’s religious freedom so long as it’s purely accidental. No accommodation of conscience is required, even if there’s no compelling interest in the restriction, and/or if there’s a less restrictive means of achieving the objectives of the restriction.

          1. Yes, you’re right on the legal aspect. Although, they may have a case if the rule was found to be applied unequally.

            Nonetheless, the principle remains the same- government has no business dictating the religious practices of others without a compelling interest.

            And you’re right that Scalia’s ruling in Smith was his worst ruling by far.

            1. Yeah, they still can’t deliberately single out a religion for mistreatment.

              But if it’s simply a matter of the government striding along and just happening, by happenstance, to trample on some group’s freedom, then they have the power to do it.

              1. Unfortunately, yes

          2. Here’s a useful chronology, based on the legacy media narrative:

            1993: President Clinton signs bipartisan bill to protect religious freedom for noble minorities like Native American religious peyote users and other embattled victims of the persecuting Christian majority

            mid-2010s: The Religious Right seeks special exemptions from laws everyone else has to obey – based on a desire to leave gay travellers starving and stranded in the middle of the desert because no gas station or restaurant will cater to them.

            1. Right. And it’s a stupid narrative invented in order for others to impose their beliefs on dissenters. The ACLU, in all it’s glory of being a joke of an organization, stopped defending RFRA (but only for Christians) after the Hobby Lobby ruling.

              1. “We have always been at war with religious exemptions!”

      2. But we know that there are Muslim-safe nylon options.

        The accommodation they want is for being poor, not for being Muslim.

  10. I broke a swimming law yesterday. Perhaps several.

    I live in an HOA. We have a community small lake and beach area.

    The rule is no dogs allowed. Was taking out the Labrador pup. How are you going to keep him out of the water. He was bred for this but needs some encouragement. He knows how to swim just doesn’t know that yet. So cotton shorts and t shirt I jumped in with him. He needs a little more practice but learned he can handle water over his head. Those big webbed paws and rudder like tail are there for a reason.

    Nobody called cops and if they had just arrest me and the dog. For the crime of pond swimming. Seriously I would request a jury trial.

    What a shame. The kids were harming nobody. Let them have fun.

    1. It’s another unnecessary use of government to violate the religious practices of others

      1. Wilmington is the bluest part of a blue state and is Woke. So either white supremacists have infiltrated the public pool staff or someone legitimately thought this was a safety issue.

        1. I’m not suggesting it’s entirely due to animus. I don’t know that. Often times it’s just do to the fact that the government doesn’t want to go through the effort of accommodating people

      2. Right because them Muslims, or Orthodox Jews, or Amish just do not fit it with “our” values.

        Can Donald Trump swim? Open question. So far as I know he has not been seen doing so.

        From an ancient source, in the Talmud (kiddushin 29a) it says that a parent has an obligation to teach your children to swim. Why? It just makes sense.

        1. It also says teach your kids to keep their underwear clean in case they’re in an accident.

          1. Mom does that. She does not need the Talmud.

            She needs no higher authority.

        2. Why? It just makes sense.

          Depends on where you live.

          One of my all time favorite lines came from Francois Bernier’s Travels in the Mughal Empire, written in the 1660s.

          He talks to some Hindu pundits and asks about the practice of bathing in the Ganges to cleanse yourself of sin. He notes that God could not have made such a law because if you tried to do that in Northern Europe everyone would die from cold.

          Their response? “That’s why God gave that law to us, and not to you.”

          1. That’s basically the whole concept of Dharma in Hinduism. Different religious laws for different groups of people.

            1. Indeed. Which unfortunately has inherent weaknesses standing up against “One Law for All” religions.

              1. A good balance is the Noachide laws for all and specifics for each community based on the local environment.

    2. How are you going to keep him out of the water. He was bred for this but needs some encouragement. He knows how to swim just doesn’t know that yet. So cotton shorts and t shirt I jumped in with him.

      Stuff him in a gunny sack and throw him in. I’ve been swimming since I was 3, it’s how I learned.

      1. They put you in a sack and tossed you in?

        1. *Straightens tie*

          I had a rough childhood. Growin’ up was rough I tell ya.

      2. At some point throw them in the water, minus gunny sack, and they will swim.

        Important thing.

  11. “Ismaa’eel said some of her students come from low-income households and cannot afford religious swimwear made of approved fabrics such as nylon.”

    So? Where I come from, if you can’t afford something, you don’t do it.

    1. You’re obviously not on the Social Justice Pyramid of Oppression, ’cause if you were, you would’ve instead whined until you got media (Reason — drink!) attention.

      1. Yeah, I know. My parents were clear on the subject. To be honest, just about everybody else’s parents were, too- that’s just how they rolled in those days. It truly was a different world.

    2. Swim in the nude. Problem solved.

      1. Nudity is less sexually provocative than slutty clothing.

        1. It’s kind of a toss up in my case…

  12. Huh. I thought Reason (drink!) didn’t handle local stories like this. Is there something different about this one as compared to the local story that caused the Great Exodus?

    1. Yeah, it’s in the headline.

  13. Aw, darn it, they changed the most interesting sentence in the article. Now it says: “Eventually, a police officer who was parked outside was called by pool staff to get involved.”

    1. Probably the worst part of his day.

      Seriously you want me to arrest kids for swimming?

      This is not why the police officer signed up.

      1. Yeah, the police officer signed up to shoot puppies and fuck with people for having proscribed plants.

  14. At the pool, the only attire that was explicitly banned was “cut-off jeans.”

    So it would be OK to go swimming in a see-thru thong?

    1. Poolside lawyers are the worst.

    2. It depends. Send pic.

      1. I think you may overestimate how attractive Nick is in a see-thru thong.

        1. I think you underestimate the potential depths of my depravity.

          1. Fair enough. Carry on.

  15. There are these young boys at the pool we go to who wear speedos. I want to report their parents for child abuse

    1. Oh, great. Now guys searching for “young boys in speedos” will be showing up here.

  16. 80 comments on a story about a kid wearing cotton getting kicked out of a pool for no other reason than wearing cotton. And we wonder why the media is so bonkers.

  17. Is Deleware a hotbed of anti-muslim hate?

    1. Of course! Why else would Reason (drink!) post a long writeup of this seemingly local story?

      1. Sucks for Reason. Don’t write too much about national politics or people start yelling that they talk about trump too much. Focus on smaller stories (hey like that one about the van gogh house yesterday) and get called out for not covering the right local stories. They should hire like 2,000 writers and have a post every minute.

        1. Point is, they explicitly passed on a cop-roughing-up-a-nurse story because it was too “local”, but they posted this one. It’s selective outrage based on the Social Justice Victimhood Pyramid, which goes to show what crap depths this site has stooped to.

          1. They should have done a short blurb on Sloopy’s mom, true. But it’s been like two years now. Bygones, and all.

            1. Actually, I don’t think Sloopy’s mom warranted a blurb, no more than this one. I only brought that up to point out that Reason took this one only because “Muslim”. In no way is this story informative, advance a libertarian cause, or is it indicative of any national trend that is of interest to libertarians. It’s about a bunch of kids wearing street clothes in a swimming pool, which, by the way, yuck.

              1. It is hard to ignore the “look at us being sympathetic to Muslims” angle on the story, when there is so little else there (and it doesn’t really even seem to be about being Muslim anyway – the inability of the public pool to accommodate the maintenance issue as compared with the private pools would have been the better libertarian angle, with a side-note of ‘look how this otherwise progressive community is creating a disparate impact on these poor Muslims’).

                But I do think they should have done a blurb on Sloopy’s mom, especially since they used a picture of his kid in a fundraising post. It’s a great case of “look, this is a real thing that happened to a person here, and is not just something we go out scouring the country to find.”

                1. I missed the fundraising picture. So yeah, that’s kind of low.

                  1. I shit you not, they literally named their child after the magazine.

                    1. Get outta town! I thought *I* had libertarian cred for naming one of my kids after an Atlas Shrugged character.

                    2. You named your kid Balph? That’s just cruel.

          2. True. Especially after using Sloopy and his family in a fundraising pitch a couple years back

          3. Selective outrage was my nickname in college.

            Didn’t reason cover a story about a nurse who got arrested because she wouldn’t take blood awhile back? Was that local or maybe not local enough?

            1. That one went nationwide.

              1. Thanks for the clarification. Well I guess if this story is picked up by something bigger than the Independent, maybe you’ll be okay with the blog post. We shall see!

  18. This is why we cannot have nice things.

  19. I bet if Americans went to a pool in Muslim-land, they could not wear a bikini.

    If your kid is hot allow them to wear less sun aborbing clothing

  20. You know, four seconds on Amazon shows that this ‘cotton swimwear’ thing is a lie.

    There’s no Islamic proscription on what fabric one can wear while bathing. Most of the burkinis are polyester and spandex–and all with joyous Muslim reviews.

    Couldn’t find anything on Ask An Imam about it.

    Journalism–who needs it, right?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.