Muslim couple denied Swiss citizenship after refusing to shake hands - Sensationalist Headlines

Up to 25 years. As little as 24 months.

Would that not qualify someone as an invader if they just wish to overrun a currently functioning country and try to push it back to the stone age, doesn't sound like immigration anymore.

Swiss citizenship is notoriously difficult to acquire. Not a surprising verdict in the slightest.

Draconian requirements are abiding by countries rules. Lmao.

good decision

Can a woman wear a skirt in Saoudi Arabia? This is where your logic strands

This sounds like a fair decision, especially from a civic nationalism point of view. It's not due to their background, but a value of the Swiss they are failing to uphold.

A lot of them aren't fleeing, they just want to come to Europe for better job security. Presumably the people in this particular article weren't refugees and were simply migrating over.

can a woman be topless in a swimbar, no. this is where the "western values" falter.

And this is why diversity is a thing. I have no issues with their values as long as they have no issue with mine, which they do... Hence why its often better to live in proximity to people who share your major beliefs and values

It seems like the article is making more out of the handshake than it should be, but wew boy some people acting like it's justifiable to deny citizenship on whether or not someone shakes your fucking hand. Like how dare these dirty mongrel pagans invade our glorious western culture, attempting to destroy society as we know it, erasing our peoples' values with their refusal to... shake hands...

Find me one post in this thread that is asserting that the reason for denial is the refusal to shake hands and considers the denial to be a positive thing. The only people here who think the reason for denial is the refusal to shake hands are the quick-fingered snipers eager to get an epic zing in without reading the article and/or comprehending the context of the situation. On the other hand, the people who consider the denial to be a positive thing actually read the article and understand that the real issue is that they treated women as inferior to men. Refused to shake hands with them, even refused to answer questions asked by them. The Swiss government decided that they don't want to have blatantly sexist bigots in their country, and acted accordingly. Given these two camps of people, and reading your post, I really don't even have to ask, but I will anyways: Did you even read the article?

Course he didn't. He just wanted to wag a finger and look good to the non-existent audience. There's a surprising amount of that on the internet. I forgot what the name for it is, But nearly every argument with significant participation eventually devolves into appeals to emotion of non-participants. I mean, not even adressing the person they're supposedly engaging in discussion with...

I want to add to this situation that this is about citizenship, not about being allowed to stay. I am currently living in Switzerland on a permit and have to stay here for another couple of years before I will be able to apply for citizenship. However, I don't have to if I want to stay, the permit is absolutely enough, and is enough to live here for muslims like that, too. The Swiss are very specific about their citizenship, however. They see citizenship equal to sharing Swiss values and culture and you have to go through a process of cultural and lingual integration before they would approve your citizenship. Religious beliefs are respected, but if this belief clashes with the basic Swiss belief that all genders are equal, then they're definitely going to vehemently refuse you citizenship. If you don't like it, don't apply for citizenship and just stay here on your permit, they're not going to kick you out for not being a Swiss citizen, the C permit you get if you stay here a while is enough to stay indefinitely (unless you start breaking laws).

I never said I was talking about Facepunch specifically, although there are a few posts that feel pretty close to hitting your criteria. I mean, fuck, one post literally asks if they should be labelled as "invaders" Did you read my post, or were you a little excited to get a reply in against someone who didn't think this couple being denied citizenship was the greatest news this week?

Can someone clarify something for me here? It sounds like both the man AND the woman, as a couple, refused to shake hands with members of the respectively opposite sex. Meaning, the African woman also wouldn't shake hands with the Swiss man. I don't think the handshakes alone are enough to base sexism on; don't you guys usually get outraged at weak claims of sexism against people in 'western' culture? Stuff like Anita Sarkesian's stretches of imagination to claim sexism in videogames. I'm just thinking that it sounds like a valid religious issue for the African couple to avoid what seems to them to be sexual contact. Think of it like a male office employee going out of his way to limit physical contact with female coworkers; my mom knew a guy who got fired for patting someone on the shoulder. I'm not condemning the Swiss authorities either. They easily could have had a lot more reasons for their claim of sexism. But I don't think it's as clear-cut as you guys are making it out to be.

Read the article next time. The article covers a whole lot more than just a handshake. It actually is a lot more clear cut when you read the article.

Maybe read my post again instead of drive-by sass? It's a very short article.

I did and it was very obvious you didn't actually read the article because the article states there were more reasons than just the handshake. I'll give you the shit you deserve. They easily could have had a lot more reasons for their claim of sexism. Yes, they did! Its amazing, its like this is in the article you didn't actually read!

Why are you determined to be an asshole? Admit you made a fucking mistake. YOU didn't read the article, or you'd know why I felt it necessary to question the story, because the article does NOT list what the other reasons for their denial were.

How about the fact they were difficult when answering questions when asked by someone of the opposite sex? Which is stated in the article you didn't read. I made no mistake, I read the article and the thread that you also didn't read where other people just like you got called out for doing the same shit you did.

Go back and read the first post I made again, and your response to it. Do you not see how you're being a total asshole over nothing? It should be evident that I put some thought into it. What do you think my agenda here is? Do you have any input to the actual content of that post, other than your needless antagonism?

You didn't put thought in to it, you didn't actually pay any attention. Quit acting like you shouldn't be given shit when you didn't do the most basic of things and read even the thread, let alone even just the article. You can only blame yourself if you do that and others call you on it. I think your agenda is to portray yourself as ethically superior to the others in this thread who to you are supporting this hypocritically, hence the remark about "don't you guys usually get outraged at weak claims of sexism against people in 'western' culture? Stuff like Anita Sarkesian's stretches of imagination to claim sexism in videogames."

You know you don't have to completely commit to being wrong

Consider how awful you come across from my perspective, as someone who genuinely wanted a conversation on these issues, of which you refuse to be reasonable with.

That can matter when it happens, you're definitely in no place to act better though. I literally don't care how awful I appear from your perspective, you didn't come in to have a conversation when your approach involved not reading the article or thread, throwing in comments like "don't you guys usually get outraged at weak claims of sexism against people in 'western' culture" Which is literally just you trying to point out non-existent hypocrisy for points. What you posted originally isn't actually based in the reality of the situation because the situation was more than what you thought it was. The handshake wasn't the only problem but you didn't read and therefore didn't know that hence why your post is just trash. Blame yourself for this because you fucked up by posting without reading.

To add to this, you need to have lived in Switzerland for around 8-10 years (Years under a certain age count as double), prove you speak German/Swiss German, and that you're integrated in the community (They might ask your neighbours and such to see if you, for example, go to the neighbourhood community meetings, etc).

I'm split, but leaning towards to swiss on this one due to the issue of gender equality, however, one word that I absolutely hate when talking about immigration is assimilation. Maybe it's different in Europe, but the thing which makes America a great place to live is the diversity of cultures here; I'm afraid of the implications of "assimilation". What does that mean? Does it mean you have to stop speaking your language? Stop cooking your own food? Celebrating your own religion? Celebrating your own holidays? When you emigrate, you lose a part of your former home and gain a part of your new home. I think that should be an individual choice, but I do think that the vetting process should have a baseline of "no discrimination".

If you're coming to europe, you must accept European values and culture and integrate into society, this is a huge sign of disrespect and should not be accepted.

If you're having trouble understanding why these people were turned away you can look at it this way; They were basically asked, "Hello applicant, do you want to live in a country where the genders are equal?" And the answer was no. So the Swiss showed them the fucking door.