Switzerland denies Muslim girls citizenship after they refuse to swim with boys

a reply to: tommo39

Telling somebody that they must adhere to a practice is not a very good precedent to set. There is no law, and nor could such be legal under international law, to force a child to swim.

Suppose Switzerland decided that it is forbidden to believe in God. What then, would they be free to deport children for praying?

a reply to: IllegalName

The hypothetical doesn't work.

In your scenario this would mean that their culture had drifted very far. If this happened and most were atheist it is unlikely still as they would respect their traditions. If a 90+% majority was reached then perhaps this would happen.

What is international law? IF international law is a real thing with power then how does africa and muslim countries disregard it?

Here is my hypothetical. If an immigrant came to the US, chanted death to america, refused to change, burnt flags all the time, is it still a bad precedent to deport that person?
Actually that is a western country so the example may not work for your brain.

Suppose an american went to Egypt, waved the american flag all day, said death to egypt, that pyramids are stupid, mummies are hoaxes, islam is idiotic, is it a bad precedent for egypt to deport them?

Now the question is where we draw this line. The Swiss didn't ask for these immigrants, the immigrants are guest. They are likely on welfare(statistically) leeching off productive swiss.

a reply to: jellyrev

What is international law? IF international law is a real thing with power then how does africa and muslim countries disregard it?

Whether or not anybody cares about international law is kind of irrelevant. You make a fair point, but what I mean is that it probably would contravene established treaties to deport a child for making a choice which does not amount to a crime.

Here is my hypothetical. If an immigrant came to the US, chanted death to america, refused to change, burnt flags all the time, is it still a bad precedent to deport that person?

The way I see it is that if somebody has full citizenship then deporting them afterwards for a crime may not be legal. In your example, if they had lived in the USA all their life then where exactly are they going to be deported to? Chad? In all seriousness, if somebody does what you said then they might well end up in prison, not being deported. That would be a matter of criminal conduct, whereas what we’re discussing here are children deciding to not do something as innocuous as swimming - deportation for that is way, way too far.

Actually that is a western country so the example may not work for your brain.

If you want to get personal then go right ahead, but tie your bootlaces first in case you might trip over.

Suppose an american went to Egypt, waved the american flag all day, said death to egypt, that pyramids are stupid, mummies are hoaxes, islam is idiotic, is it a bad precedent for egypt to deport them?

See above, this is just utterly incomparable to schoolchildren refusing to swim.

The Swiss didn't ask for these immigrants, the immigrants are guest. They are likely on welfare(statistically) leeching off productive swiss.

How are they “guests”? They are schooling, which suggests to me that they are full residents. You also believe they are “leeching state welfare”; if they are on benefits then again they are presumably full residents. Therefore, they are not “guests” but rather “citizens”. Deporting a family which has full legal status just because their children won’t swim with the opposite sex is a terrible attitude and precedent.

Welcome back to Nazi Europe everybody. Now if you’d all excuse me I have a military uniform to buy.

a reply to: jellyrev

Here is my hypothetical

Good explanation, could not have put it better myself......

a reply to: tommo39

By conform, you mean follow your rules, whether or not it goes against your parents teachings, or the morals of your religion...or both.

But that's OK, as long as you disagree with those teachings or morals, right?

To my eyes, that's nothing more than bullying. ...and I have issues with that.

then they MUST conform to Swiss laws, rules and practices, no if's or but's, period.....

...and how does that attitude differentiate Switzerland from the "evil" Muslim world, again? Our way or the highway...

Because of a swimming test? Seriously? An f'n swimming test.

Does no one else see the utter stupidity of this?

Seems to me the Swiss are forgetting their own history, and/or legends: An apple and an arrow.

How about that?

a reply to: seagull

How about that?

Does not concern me at all, you appear to be looking for an arguementative discussion, sorry, but not on my watch mate, i don't intend to play "around and around the mulberry bush".....

a reply to: tommo39

you appear to be looking for an arguementative discussion

I think you set that tone in your opening post...

Muslims think they are above the law ... they follow a silly book...
disobey at your own peril like these girls have done and suffer the consequences

You’re very unlikely to find a civil debate if you come out with crap like that.

So whose watch is it again? Who gave you the authority to tell anybody to not debate the topic?

originally posted by: seagull
Because of a swimming test? Seriously? An f'n swimming test.

It's more about setting precedents, remembering that it's the parents attempting to stop their kids participating in school activities.

Today you compromise on swimming and accept the culture of male dominated control of women and girls, and the next you have to compromise on other things: Say segregation in school, forced marriage et al. It's all part of the same current bun.

Best set the criteria for acceptance high so as to manage the expectations of people who choose to emigrate to Switzerland. Pity this approach has not happened elsewhere, because in the UK there are regular reports of girls being treated differently and unequally "because it's their "Dad's" culture", as if women in the UK have not fought for centuries to be treated equally.

a reply to: paraphi

I'm sorry, but when does the State begin to dictate what a family does or does not allow?

Are the kids learning the language? I would assume so. Are they otherwise assimilating? They are being judged on not participating in a swim test, and denied a passport/citizenship...for not taking a swim test.

Because they don't want, or parents rather, don't want them in the pool at the same time as boys...

This is just so stupidly shortsighted as to beggar the imagination.

Drawing a line... Or precedence, if you prefer. Right. No, what it is is playing politics with the lives of two kids who've done nothing wrong, save be born into a family with strong religious beliefs. But they're the ones who are wrong, not the State playing God.

If the mother or father were criminals? Surely, deny them. Suspected terrorists? Oh, wait, they're Muslims, of course some are going to suspect/accuse them of being just that...so, of course, deny.

Gah...

More and more I have trouble fathoming the thinking that passes for politics in this benighted world. Bomb nations into the stone age, claim that we're the ones for freedom, yet use this piddling excuse to deny a family refuge.

What ever.

a reply to: tommo39

No, you'd just destroy lives over a swimming test. That's ok, though, you're not alone.

originally posted by: seagull
or parents rather, don't want them in the pool at the same time as boys...

This is just so stupidly shortsighted as to beggar the imagination.

It certainly is stupid and shortsighted, that children are not allowed to swim together!

a reply to: seagull

you'd just destroy lives over a swimming test

No,No and No again. The "swim" is no the point of conjecture, it's the fact that these refugees will NOT integrate into the Swiss schooling system that is the country law...I am an ex-muslim, and know how islam "plays the game" against western nations including the good old USA.

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: paraphi

I'm sorry, but when does the State begin to dictate what a family does or does not allow?

Clearly, when it comes to how children are schooled and the prevailing cultural standards. Quite right too.

a reply to: IllegalName

The new rooster in the pen, crows again.....cock-o-doodle-do.....

a reply to: tommo39

Wait, wait... they were either immigrants or refugees. Okay, there is an extent where somebody who wants to move to another country, and indeed do so by their very own accord, may have to make some changes to their cultural behaviours in order to be a part of the community. Not always but possibly sometimes.

If, on the other hand, this family was forced out of a war-zone against their will, and should they have stayed then they would probably have been killed (be it deliberately or collaterally), then quite frankly this is just 100% fascism.

If they are refugees then where are they going to be deported to, a war-zone??

a reply to: IllegalName

Totally disagree with you. If you through charity and selflessness took in a refugee (i.e. personally into your home) you would not tolerate them beating their wife up, or damaging your furniture, crapping in the sink etc., or anything like that "because it's what they did before - it's cultural, man".

You would expect them to live by the laws and the norms of your household. That expectation is no different when scaled up to a country.

a reply to: paraphi
In this analogy, you as the homeowner then have the right to force their daughters to strip and get into swimsuits and parade around in front of your sons.

a reply to: paraphi

Again, making comparisons to something which would be criminal or suable in court is pointless. Nobody was hurt, nobody was threatened, nobody was defamed. They did nothing wrong but were fined what amounts to half of my personal income each year, that is a lot of money and no doubt a crucial amount to those people if they are refugees.

originally posted by: IllegalName
Telling somebody that they must adhere to a practice is not a very good precedent to set. There is no law, and nor could such be legal under international law, to force a child to swim.

Learning to swim is a compulsory part of the school curriculum, along

with Physical Education (PE) as long as health reasons don't stand in the way.

The same applies to the UK, and i dare say many other countries.

Whatever the reasons for the refusal to complete the compulsory

educational requirements, it is a violation of the law not to do so.


Breaking the law is a criminal offence?? It was the last time i looked.


OK, so it is a minor offence to some people, But ..... if allowed

What next?

ALL citizens should be treated equal!!?

Suppose Switzerland decided that it is forbidden to believe in God. What then, would they be free to deport children for praying?

Or suppose the *Muslims* required the Swiss to take on the Koran? or ALL

women to wear the burka? or as is happening in Sweden and Germany the

rape of women by immigrant men who think it permissible as their lack of regard

of women.

originally posted by: seagull
By conform, you mean follow your rules, whether or not it goes against your parents teachings, or the morals of your religion...or both.

If the parents teachings and morals go against the laws of the country they

have chosen to live in, then yes remove the family somewhere they

can practice what they believe in ... Saudi? Iran? turkey?

To my eyes, that's nothing more than bullying. ...and I have issues with that.

So you take no notice of speed limits, taking someone's wallet, being generally

anti social, and making a nuisance of yourself - because to abide by minor rules

regulations, and laws ..... is no more than bullying?

Because of a swimming test? Seriously? An f'n swimming test.

NO not a swimming test.... A compliance with the compulsory school carriculum

of the country they have chosen to live in - warts and all.

Seems to me the Swiss are forgetting their own history, and/or legends:

Seems to me the Swiss are only following their own laws, in treating .....

ALL citizens EQUALLY

How about that then