A MUSLIM schoolgirl in Germany has been told that she must take part in mixed swimming lessons—and that wearing a burkini (a garment that covers most of the body, and doesn't reveal much, even when wet) is a reasonable answer to her concerns about modesty. For law-and-religion watchers all over Europe, the case was an important test: how can democracies with diverse, and in many ways diverging, populations find a compromise between common citizenship and accommodating difference? The story began two years ago when an 11-year-old girl and her Moroccan parents, living in Frankfurt, demanded that she be exempted from co-educational swimming. Her lawyer argued that wearing a burkini did not entirely meet her religious scruples: it would make her feel embarrassed, and she would still have to mingle with scantily clad boys. She wanted to swim, but only with girls.

But an appeals court in Leipzig upheld the opinion of lower courts that the burkini was an adequate solution. Nor did the judge have much sympathy for the girl's desire to avoid splashing about with boys in skimpy togs. The most interesting part of the ruling stated that "the basic right of religious freedom does not confer any entitlement to be spared from encountering, at school, the behaviour of third parties...[behaviour] which is widely observed in daily life, outside school, at certain seasons." As for the risk of inappropriate physical contact with Spandex-wearing lads, that could be avoided in the judge's view by a vigilant teacher and due precautions by the girl herself.

The subtext was that if the girl was unbearably offended by people sunbathing or walking the streets with very little on (or nothing at all, in some parks and beaches), then Germany might not be the country for her. But given that she was in Germany, a burkini offered a way of adhering to her values without imposing them on others. Muslim groups in Germany have given a mixed response; they are pleased that the burkini is now accepted in pools and they think it meets religious concerns, but they would be happier still if the individual's right to opt out were respected.

If Germany is crawling its way to a swim-and-let-swim consensus, Britain still seems to be treading water. This week a pregnant British woman complained strongly after pool guards objected, on hygiene grounds, to a vest top which she had donned over her swimsuit, in order to hide her 33-week bump. Other women were sloshing about in full-body covering, Amanda Burch noted. The pool in Portsmouth said defensively that it only allowed extra covering when there were religious or bona fide medical reasons; and even then it reserved the right to object on grounds of safety. Still, the pool was investigating the incident and it apologised for any offence. As a former life-guard, Ms Burch knows a bit about swimming regulations. The pool seems to have chosen the wrong person to challenge.