Swiss halt Muslim family's citizenship process after refusal to shake hands

[Djinn]

There are plenty of Muslims which gets citizenship,
but why allow people citizenship when they cannot follow the habits expected by citizens.
First rule of citizenship should be that You set Your country before Your religion.
If that is a problem for You, then You should move to a country where this does not
cause a conflict, or stay without the rights of a citizen (to vote etc.)
You will still have a lot of other rights.

Its a mere handshake for heavens sake. People do so many horrible things and they still are accepted. Even thou these boys sound as very conservative and should really stay in where they can stick to their conservative lifestyle. However Swiss authorities are over reacting and that is entirely because they are Muslims. Perhaps if the authorities instead of trying to penalize them for not shaking hand, told them that it is customary and good manners to shake hands then may they would have complied

Though there is discrimination, there is no wide spread killing of anyone in Europe based on religion. Additionally, there is a clear difference between a blasphemy law and a genocide denial law. The former is based on religious beliefs versus genocide denial laws that are based on historical events and fall under hate speech laws that were also made to protect Muslim immigrants as well.

Europe is involved in mass killing based on it's values.........Democrazy in Iraq, Libya and now Syria------People are dying, No?
Please the "Genocidal Denial Laws" have only one religion written all over them. This is the thing when it comes to Muslims, their religion is the center of attention, but when it comes to Non-Muslims there is plethora of excuses to conceal the religious connection.

1. You're now switching from me personally in relation to muslims and muslims in europe.
2. I've not discussed in any way 'muslims' in europe', as this is not the topic of the thread per se.
3. You go on about how 'muslims' are treated in 'Europe' without even the vaguest of recognition of the fact that neither term is unequivocal defined.
4. You can't pretend that Europe is a uniform entity, EU notwithstanding (just like Asia isn't).
5. It is highly unlikely you have knowledge of all of Europe
6. The proportion of muslims in the population of European countries varies, as does their origin and their history
7. Muslims can also be local converts. Here, we're dealing with immigrants (which have already been allowed asylum and access to the country a fifteen years ago - i.e. just before or after the birth of the oldest boy) that are now applying for citizenship. There may be a difference between applying for asylum and for citizenship, in terms of what requirements must be met. This is quite common in a great many countries all over the world
6. So, have you actually read the article in post #1?
7. Meanwhile, people here feel free to use the post as excuse to use terms like Albino to indicate what they presume to be white people in Switzerland: all hell would break loose if someone would use a similarly derogatory term to indicate non-white people in some country someplace else in the world.
8. Folks here feel free to use that post to utter the most rabidly anti-female statements here.

Start with the beam in your own eye before you complain abot the possible splinter in someone else's eye!


Nobody was stripped of their citizenship in this case. The parents were granted asylum in 2001. The family apparently now applied for citizenship. That means they do not yet have Swiss citenship. And it could imply the children weren't born in Switzerland.


.

You think just because you have a habit of skinning a hair that adds a whole lot more weightage to your flawed argument.
I don't need to have knowledge of entire Europe to asses the Islamophobia, but same goes for you, you are not privy to all details so don't act like Mr. Know it all.
Do you also know that the boys were exempted from shaking hands but now the future of entire family is at stake just because the issue has been politicized? I can quote several examples where they have issues with Muslims wearing religious clothes and symbols but not with Jews, Hindus, Sikhs & Christians.

 

[Penguin]

You think just because you have a habit of skinning a hair that adds a whole lot more weightage to your flawed argument.

.
And what argument would that be?

I don't need to have knowledge of entire Europe to asses the Islamophobia, but same goes for you, you are not privy to all details so don't act like Mr. Know it all.

The difference of course being that I never claimed or implied such a thing, unlike some people here.

Do you also know that the boys were exempted from shaking hands but now the future of entire family is at stake just because the issue has been politicized?

Ah, you finally did get around to reading the article!

I can quote several examples where they have issues with Muslims wearing religious clothes and symbols but not with Jews, Hindus, Sikhs & Christians.

Who'se 'they' again? "Them"? Or "us"?

Perhaps you should learn a little about the Swiss naturalisation process (which I am not defending).

Regular naturalisation
Foreigners with no direct blood ties to Switzerland through either birth or marriage must currently live in the country for at least 12 years before they can apply for citizenship. Years spent in the country between ages ten and 20 count double. A new law reducing the number of years of residence from 12 to 10 was passed by Parliament in June 2014 and is expected to go into effect at the beginning of 2017.

The person must be well integrated, familiar with customs and traditions, law abiding, and pose no threat to internal or external security.

The State Secretariat for Migration will then “green light” an applicant’s request to begin the naturalisation process but that does not mean citizenship is certain. Rather, cantons and municipalities have their own requirements that must be met. One canton, for example, might require applicants to live for two years in the region while another might require a decade

http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/becoming-a-citizen/29288376

In Switzerland every community can have its own naturalisation process. So whether your request for naturalisation is successful can also depend on where you live.

A rejected naturalisation request in Einsiedeln has triggered a heated debate. The district council rejected Irving Dunn’s request for Swiss citizenship, even though the retired chemistry professor has lived and worked in the country for over 40 years and raised his children here.

Had Dunn lived in another community, his request might have passed. There are many different procedures in central Switzerland alone. Dunn’s case led to discussions and criticism towards the practice of letting the public decide who should be naturalised.

In other places this isn’t possible. Kriens near Lucerne for instance has 25,000 inhabitants. Like in most larger communities of central Switzerland it’s not the people but a commission that takes the decisions.

http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/natural...n-professor-denied-swiss-citizenship/41075124

Under a new naturalisation law rubber stamped by parliament on Friday, foreigners will have to wait ten years, rather than 12, before they can request citizenship. But the Swiss passport remains one of the most difficult to obtain in Europe.

“The government is not aiming to naturalise the smallest or even the largest number of people in the future. Its objective it to naturalise the best integrated people in Switzerland,” said justice minister Simonetta Sommaruga, as she outlined the government’s position during the parliamentary debates.

“There are foreigners who are extremely well integrated into our society after five years and there are some who are not, even after decades here. In the future, the granting of citizenship should not mostly depend on how long a person has been resident in Switzerland.”

http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/natural...ent-passes-new-swiss-citizenship-law/38821516

Some 8,000 Swiss residents per year are naturalised through the facilitated procedure, accounting for a quarter of all naturalisations. swissinfo.ch spoke to several applicants, two of whom are still awaiting a decision. The sample, though not representative, shows a system lacking in fairness and consistency.
...
The ordinary naturalisation procedure has earned a reputation for being expensive, demanding and even capricious in some cases. Last October, a retired American professor (see video below) who has lived in Switzerland for more than 40 years and raised his family here had his application rejected by his local commune Einsiedeln on the grounds of not being integrated enough.
...
Integration

Integration is a non-legal term measured using a broad range of criteria. The naturalisation decision is based on an overall assessment of the individual case, according to the State Secretariat for Migration. The applicants are required to:

• Respect the basic principles of the Constitution.
• Observe the law (any past or outstanding prosecutions, criminal or for debts, will prevent naturalisation)
• Take part in the social life of the community
• Have sufficient language skills (A2/B1)
• Be professionally integrated (ie. employed or studying)
• Be knowledgeable about the Swiss political system, Swiss culture and traditions.

The cantons can also require that the applicant is self-sufficient, ie. not dependent on social welfare

http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/citizenship-test_facilitated-naturalisation--a-bitter-pill-/41295932

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_nationality_law

In short, applying for naturalisation in Switzerland is tough for any applicant (including Americans that have lived there for 40 years and raised their children there)....

 

[24 Hours]

Europe is involved in mass killing based on it's values.........Democrazy in Iraq, Libya and now Syria------People are dying, No?
Please the "Genocidal Denial Laws" have only one religion written all over them. This is the thing when it comes to Muslims, their religion is the center of attention, but when it comes to Non-Muslims there is plethora of excuses to conceal the religious connection.

European reaction to the invasion of Iraq was mixed, and only the UK assisted the US with it. Libya's invasion was based on the UN Security Council Resolution 1973 of which 5 of the 10 votes in support were non-European countries and that invasion was supported by both the Arab League and the GCC. Arabs and Turkey are just as much involved in Syria if not more than Europe.

In addition, Holocaust denial laws are going to vary by country, for example in Switzerland. Holocaust denial is not explicitly illegal by itself but, denying it and other genocides is punishable. This would therefore include the genocide of Bosnian Muslims as well. Even so, this still falls under laws against hate speech, where Muslims are protected too.

 

[Djinn]

European reaction to the invasion of Iraq was mixed, and only the UK assisted the US with it. Libya's invasion was based on the UN Security Council Resolution 1973 of which 5 of the 10 votes in support were non-European countries and that invasion was supported by both the Arab League and the GCC. Arabs and Turkey are just as much involved in Syria if not more than Europe.

In addition, Holocaust denial laws are going to vary by country, for example in Switzerland. Holocaust denial is not explicitly illegal by itself but, denying it and other genocides is punishable. This would therefore include the genocide of Bosnian Muslims as well. Even so, this still falls under laws against hate speech, where Muslims are protected too.

US and NATO is actively engaged in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria. You might wanna try better than this. Even if some NATO states were not willing in the beginning, they are launching air attacks in these states and therefore are the culprits. It doesn't matter whether the other Muslim states give the consent or not, fact is did the inhabitants of these states agree to be bombed? The answer is NO.............. Most importantly innocent people are being killed. Only the non-Muslims justify these killings under lame excuses.
Holocaust denial law is very much about the protection of Jews, if they were about Muslims then we shouldn't be seeing this unabated Islamophobia in Europe especially in advanced states like France and Germany...........Where they have these Islamophobic hate groups spreading hate without any intervention from their so-called balanced laws.

.
And what argument would that be?


The difference of course being that I never claimed or implied such a thing, unlike some people here.


Ah, you finally did get around to reading the article!


Who'se 'they' again? "Them"? Or "us"?

Perhaps you should learn a little about the Swiss naturalisation process (which I am not defending).


http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/becoming-a-citizen/29288376


http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/natural...n-professor-denied-swiss-citizenship/41075124


http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/natural...ent-passes-new-swiss-citizenship-law/38821516


http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/citizenship-test_facilitated-naturalisation--a-bitter-pill-/41295932

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_nationality_law

In short, applying for naturalisation in Switzerland is tough for any applicant (including Americans that have lived there for 40 years and raised their children there)....

Your petty attempts to lead the discussion astray.
Yes you did, you acted like just because you can post some links so some how you will have more credibility again in your futile attempt to detract the topic.
You know who THEY are so again a failed attempt by you.
So far what i have grasped from your rubbish of posts. You think that by trying to nit pick you can divert the attention from the fact that 'Europeans are Islamophobic'( again there is a window for you to act smart and question which Europeans lol) and this incident is a clear indication of that. Swiss naturalisation is not the issue here the concern is the political lobbying at the national level against these kids, these are kids? unless you prove with your superior brains and some links that they are not kids ROFL.

 

[24 Hours]

US and NATO is actively engaged in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria. You might wanna try better than this. Even if some NATO states were not willing in the beginning, they are launching air attacks in these states and therefore are the culprits. It doesn't matter whether the other Muslim states give the consent or not, fact is did the inhabitants of these states agree to be bombed? The answer is NO.............. Most importantly innocent people are being killed. Only the non-Muslims justify these killings under lame excuses.
Holocaust denial law is very much about the protection of Jews, if they were about Muslims then we shouldn't be seeing this unabated Islamophobia in Europe especially in advanced states like France and Germany...........Where they have these Islamophobic hate groups spreading hate without any intervention from their so-called balanced laws.

NATO alone as an organization had no role in the decision to undertake the initial invasion of Iraq to conduct it. The intervention in Libya was not a decision based entirely on NATO alone. It was, as stated before, was picked by popular vote in the UN Security Council. It was not a decision based entirely by the West. While innocent people being killed by Syria, how many are done by air strikes and how many are done by ISIS and other Islamist rebel groups? As for Afghanistan, take a guess which group is responsible for most of the civilian deaths. Hint: It's the group hated by most of the people of Afghanistan.

Holocaust denial law is very much about the protection of Jews, if they were about Muslims then we shouldn't be seeing this unabated Islamophobia in Europe especially in advanced states like France and Germany...........Where they have these Islamophobic hate groups spreading hate without any intervention from their so-called balanced laws.

You don't say. If they were about Muslims that would imply that Muslims were among the targeted victims in the Holocaust.

 

[Spring Onion]

No, shaking hands with men, but not with women because they are "unclean" is.

NO it is not like that neither there is any such concept.

The only concept is touching a woman may lead to sexual desires which consequently can lead to sexual abuse and crimes against women . It is as simple as that. You do not know these frustrated asian or for that matter men from underdeveloped world irrespective of faith.

Let me narrate an incident here. Once I had invited a local known artists for a two-hour programe at our broadcast station. The man was from a very cultured ethnic group where respecting women is taken seriously and he also knew that shaking hands with females in our society is against the customs unless any woman wants to shake hand willingly. Now after the programme was conducted successfully. We served him with refreshment at my office and when he was leaving I thanked him formally being head of the station but he wanted to shake hand which I refused. Still he was insisting and i flatly said sorry I do not feel shaking hand with you. This left him leave while cursing in whispers.

So the point is it is not only about shaking hand with women but women can also refuse to shake hand with men if they feel so. Nothing to do with clean or unclean.

I wonder if you guys have so little knowledge about Islam and Muslims how can you clear the misunderstanding. At least you can give a try to gain some knowledge without bias. Muslim countries are backward and their population uneducated but you guys despite being educated act the same

 

[Penguin]

Your petty attempts to lead the discussion astray.

Sorry, but I was posting here first (as per p1) and you have been leading the discussion astray ever since your late arrivel on p4

Yes you did, you acted like just because you can post some links so some how you will have more credibility again in your futile attempt to detract the topic.

You apparently can't tell the difference between 'knowing it all' and "taking the time and putting in the effort to look into a subject matter before opening your mouth". Then again, I'm 30 years you senior in age, so - yeah - I should appear a know it all to you.

You know who THEY are so again a failed attempt by you.

Stop generalizing and be specific when you post.

So far what i have grasped from your rubbish of posts. You think that by trying to nit pick you can divert the attention from the fact that 'Europeans are Islamophobic'( again there is a window for you to act smart and question which Europeans lol) and this incident is a clear indication of that. Swiss naturalisation is not the issue here the concern is the political lobbying at the national level against these kids, these are kids? unless you prove with your superior brains and some links that they are not kids ROFL.

I think by now it is perfectly clear who is prejudicial.

Swis natualisation IS the topic here. It is one of the most difficul in Europe, for all. Even the Swiss admit know it and admit is.

You should reread the article of post 1 again: the naturalisation proceedings for the family were put on hold, the report noted that such suspensions are common in citizenship procedures as authorities often require supplemental information about the families concerned and Basel’s migration office was seeking more information about the circumstances under which the father’s asylum request was approved.

I've also provided you above with information concerning the case of a US citizen (university professor) - presumably not a muslim - who has lived and worked in Switzerland for 40 years and has raised his children there and who got refused.

I don't need to prove zilch to you or anyone here. You, on the other hand, might do well to provide proof to back up your general claim that 'Europeans are Islamophobic'. Here's a list of sovereign states en dependent territories in Europe:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_in_Europe. Those are Europeans. Go ahead.

 

[Dubious]

Not the Swiss in any case.

I suggest you research about them a little more

I suggest you not equate one (report of a) decision in one country with all decisions in 'the west'

Well, it starts with one and is not something new ...When 1 country starts almost "esp" if it hits media...it does spread like wildfire!

I also suggest you study in detail the Swiss case, just to find ou the details. It is entirely possible important information got lost in the press report. E.g. if there is a (possibility of ) an appeal. Or a court case.

Sure...

Perhaps you should write a letter to the Swiss embassy in the country where you are, to voice your concerns. For one thing, it could help relieve you apparent anger and frustration. And who know's, you might actually help get something positive done..

You think its done that way? 1 letter from a foreign student? without influential backing it would be "accepted" (as per their law they cant throw it away) but "lost"

I suggest you go back an reread the thread.

I put in a story by a lady of the muslim faith, who discussed the issue and how she dealt with it. From there, I learned that traditional etiquette in 'my' part of the world actually spoke to the matter. So, I explored that a little bit. I did not initiate any discussion, in fact I took a - in my own view - very moderate and balance personal position.

.. and I still can't figure out what you are on about. Not the Swiss in any case.

I was talking about the person who opened OP....the opener himself wrote and told me shaking hands - in his opinion- is courtesy (as viewed by him)...And I too agree...But halting citizen process based on that is kind of petty, dont you think?

Yeah, right, the former colonizers all were pushing their ex colonies towards marxism and communism.

Did I say that? Please read again

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

NO it is not like that neither there is any such concept.

The only concept is touching a woman may lead to sexual desires which consequently can lead to sexual abuse and crimes against women . It is as simple as that. You do not know these frustrated asian or for that matter men from underdeveloped world irrespective of faith.

Let me narrate an incident here. Once I had invited a local known artists for a two-hour programe at our broadcast station. The man was from a very cultured ethnic group where respecting women is taken seriously and he also knew that shaking hands with females in our society is against the customs unless any woman wants to shake hand willingly. Now after the programme was conducted successfully. We served him with refreshment at my office and when he was leaving I thanked him formally being head of the station but he wanted to shake hand which I refused. Still he was insisting and i flatly said sorry I do not feel shaking hand with you. This left him leave while cursing in whispers.

So the point is it is not only about shaking hand with women but women can also refuse to shake hand with men if they feel so. Nothing to do with clean or unclean.

I wonder if you guys have so little knowledge about Islam and Muslims how can you clear the misunderstanding. At least you can give a try to gain some knowledge without bias. Muslim countries are backward and their population uneducated but you guys despite being educated act the same

Anyone can choose to shake or not shake hand with an individual.
Where You go over the line is when You motivate Your choice not to shake hands, by the sex of the other person.

There are natural points when shaking hands is appropriate.
If someone wants to shake hands at an unatural point in the relationship, it is natural to refuse.