Muslim couple denied citizenship over handshake refusal

[NovaKart]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-45232147

Their nationality isn’t given except it’s stated they’re North African. I’ve heard Switzerland is especially strict about citizenship.

 

[Synobun]

Both the article title and the title here on CFC are stupid. It isn't the handshake, it's the refusal to consider the other sex an equal.

 

[uppi]

I’ve heard Switzerland is especially strict about citizenship.

Depends on what part of Switzerland you are talking about. The Swiss are ultra-federalists in such a way that the local town grants citizenship and can set their own rules about the requirements. And in some towns, these rules are especially strict.

 

[Traitorfish]

Both the article title and the title here on CFC are stupid. It isn't the handshake, it's the refusal to consider the other sex an equal.

That's not much better, as grounds for denying citizenship.

 

[Synobun]

That's not much better, as grounds for denying citizenship.

It's a great reason for denying citizenship.

 

[Traitorfish]

It's a great reason for denying citizenship.

There are no mechanisms in place for ensuring that native-born citizens adhere to any particular set of liberal norms, so how far can that be made a condition for naturalisation?

I can grant that espousal of extreme unconstitutional views would be grounds for refusal. Hard to expect the protection of a state that you are actively hostile to. But exotic and even retrograde gender norms is not a clear menace to the Swiss state. These norms aren't even all that Medieval: they would have been pretty typical in much of Europe into the twentieth century. I don't think my grandmother ever shook a man's hand in her life.

 

[Synobun]

Immigration isn't equivalent to native-born citizenship.

 

[Traitorfish]

Immigration isn't equivalent to native-born citizenship.

It isn't, which is why natives with anti-constitutional views are extended greater tolerance. But these are outliers. Citizenship is not, in a democratic society, in a republic, an hereditary privilege which may, on occasion, be extended to foreigners who have shown particular merit. It's the formal recognition of membership in the public body, something which is evident prior to and regardless of that formal recognition. The people-as-republic precedes the republic-as-state. If these people were eligible for citizenship before their deviant views on physical contact were identified, they are still eligible. They do not cease to be members of the republic because they have incurred the disapproval of public officials. For the state to reject that membership on ideological grounds is an essentially anti-republican gesture, whatever liberal dressing you put on it.

I think we (that is, OT) had this same discussion a few years ago regarding the veil, and my view hasn't change. Either real citizenship precedes legal recognition of citizenship, or there are no citizens, only subjects with pretensions.

 

[Synobun]

It's not just physical contact. The couple also "struggled" to respond to questions asked of them by the opposite sex. Switzerland, or any liberal society, doesn't need to import barbaric beliefs. The belief that the opposite sex isn't worthy of equal consideration is barbaric. It is fantastic that we have made strides to weed this out in our native-born population. There is no reason to welcome it back.

 

[Traitorfish]

It's not just physical contact. The couple also "struggled" to respond to questions asked of them by the opposite sex. Switzerland, or any liberal society, doesn't need to import barbaric beliefs. The belief that the opposite sex isn't worthy of equal consideration is barbaric. It is fantastic that we have made strides to weed this out in our native-born population. There is no reason to welcome it back.

Does this sort of social engineering really fall within the purview of immigration officials?

 

[Synobun]

Yes?

 

[Traitorfish]

Yes?

From where could they possibly derive that sort of authority?

 

[Synobun]

The state?

 

[Traitorfish]

The state?

Then from where does the state derive such powers?

The conventional answer would be "the people". But if the state exercises an arbitrary right to decide who does and does not constitute "the people", then how can any such entity be said to exist prior to the state, and thus capable of legitimising it?

"Would it not be easier in that case for the government to dissolve the people and elect another?"

 

[Synobun]

Divine mandate, brother.

 

[Yeekim]

@Traitorfish
Seems like you have a problem with the process of naturalization and the concept of citizenship as such.

 

[Hygro]

From where could they possibly derive that sort of authority?

Being reasonable people assigned to gatekeep?

 

[Azem.Ocram]

I honestly believe that regardless of place of origin, full-citizenship should require passing a citizenship test, and possibly some sort of service as well (like the Peace Corps or Job Corps [or military service]). Then, have voting and holding governmental positions require citizenship. Natural Born citizens who don’t pass the test get demoted to permanent residents. I wonder, how many politicians would be removed from office this way?

 

[NovaKart]

I don’t really get the handshake thing because I think it doesn’t necessary imply inequality if people refuse to shake hands with the opposite sex. However, if they have trouble just interacting with people of the opposite sex to answer questions, that’s more of a problem.

 

[Broken_Erika]

Divine mandate, brother.

Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is a perfectly acceptable method of forming governments.