You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Britain
“Britishness Test” For All New Muslims Citizens
2003-08-06
Becoming a British citizen used to be simply a matter of filling in forms and waiting for your application to be processed. However, last year’s Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act, pushed through by the Home Secretary, is to change all of this. It is reported that proposals published last week by Ministers would obliged immigrants to pledge there loyalty to the UK in a more formal way.
If you want to be a citizen, that kind of implies loyalty, doesn't it?
The new legislation makes a requirement that applicants for citizenship must have "sufficient knowledge of life in the UK". Applicants will be expected to pass a "Britishness test" on practical aspects of life in the UK and its institutions. The current 110,000 people who attain British citizenship every year do so without demonstrating any knowledge of values of the UK, and are not even required to speak English. Those who seek naturalisation as a British citizen will be guided through the ceremony by a registrar. This will involve an American style “pledge of allegiance” to the Queen, and also a pledge to uphold the UK's rights, freedoms and democratic values.
Something, again, normally expected of citizens...
There has for some time been a sense by the British establishment that people entering the UK for the purposes of settlement do not integrate here very well. There is the notion that people should carry the values of this society in addition to receiving a passport. An immigration minister has said: "Becoming a British citizen should not be about obtaining a bit of paper and a passport
” British society values the freedom to choose whether you are straight or gay, believe in a creator or be an atheist and be able to live and make laws however you want. The effects of these values can be seen around us today, in the constant altering of laws to accommodate changing values, and the constant redefinition of religion to accommodate those values. Muslims in particular have been the subject of various criticisms by Ministers and are likely to be the primary motivation for such new schemes and legislation. Muslims in the UK have held onto the Islamic values distinct from the Western ones leading us to be viewed as isolationist and detached from the society. It is fast becoming unacceptable for a western society to have elements that are in direct contradiction to it; hence the push to integrate the Muslims grows ever more forceful.
If you can't accept the concept of individual liberty then it'd be a good idea to stay where you're more comfortable. If you're a citizen, you have the freedom to try and change things, but not the right to impose your values on your neighbors. That's a concept Muslims have trouble with...
Posted by:Fred Pruitt

#15  If only the Right Wing Christian nutz like Ashcroft would be held to the same standard--secular trumps religion--we'd have a better USA
Posted by: Not Mike Moore   2003-8-6 10:46:37 PM  

#14  Aris - this happened once before. When John Kennedy was about to take office, many in America feared that he'd hold his loyalty to the Roman Catholic Church over the oath of office. In order to calm these fears, Kennedy stated quite bluntly that his loyalties were to God, the USA, and THEN the Pope, in that precise order.

THAT is what we need to be asking of Islam. That they be loyal to God, then to their country (be it the land of their birth, or where they've emmegrated to) and THEN to the rather garbled "laws" that the Koran and it's side books set forth.

And that when there is a conflict between the secular and the religious, they MUST accept the primacy of secular law over religious.

Goverenments run by priests have been, are now, and always WILL be a terrible idea. Priests fear that which is new, because new means change, and change means they'll lose power.

Ed Becerra
Posted by: Ed Becerra   2003-8-6 10:27:24 PM  

#13  I fixed the hiccups.

Aris: After you're in the club you're entitled to an opinion. If you're trying to get in the club and you don't like the rules, maybe you should join a different club.
Posted by: Fred   2003-8-6 9:56:46 PM  

#12  Here, SM, stick your head in this paper bag for a while... that'll cure those hiccups!
Posted by: Old Grouch   2003-8-6 8:17:40 PM  

#11  I have to agree with Aris on one point: poor Albion isn't much of a democracy any more. Freedom of speach is highly curtailed by "hate speach" laws, trail-by-jury is largely abolished, legal rights to private property are under attack, and the basic human right to self defence has been all but destroyed. Weep O Britain for thy are great no more....
Posted by: Secret Master   2003-8-6 6:52:56 PM  

#10  "Ooooooops, sorry, looks like you all failed! Follow Hook Boy back on the boat!"

No BCLU over there to fight this affront to the Prophet and his devotees?
Posted by: tu3031   2003-8-6 3:23:05 PM  

#9  They're going to say tits, winkle, and vibraphone to them to see if they blush.
Posted by: BH   2003-8-6 2:23:58 PM  

#8  Aris: The abolition of the Monarchy is debated, but most people don't feel strongly enough that it should be abolished.
The role of the monarchy in British politics is mostly symbllic, and while the Brits are the Queens subjects, they are also British Citizens who can stand on a box at Speakers corner, or anywhere and make a case for the abolition of the Monarchy.
In short, there is Freedom of speech in the Britain.
Posted by: S   2003-8-6 2:08:17 PM  

#7  Fred> Well I definitely don't want to be a Brit personally, but I'd think that abolishing the monarchy should be considered an acceptable rather than a traitorous position for a Brit to have. And I'd expect that there are a lot of people in Britain who may love the place, would want to be citizens, and yet still be willing to argue and vote against the monarchy.

JFM> If we're back to the insulting countries thing, then I am not entirely sure the Britain is a democracy nowadays either, since that unelected House of Lords still wields power, a fact much more annoying than the power that the *elected* barbarians of Brussels have.

JFM, to quote the Greek poet Kavafis, what would you do without barbarians to blame?
Posted by: Aris Katsaris   2003-8-6 12:29:06 PM  

#6  The US citizenship process includes a portion where the new citizen denies loyalty to other countries. Of course any muslim who wants could pull a Clinton and say that the 'Umma' isn't an actual country. Or they could just lie.
Posted by: mhw   2003-8-6 12:17:58 PM  

#5  Perfidious Albion!
Posted by: 11A5S   2003-8-6 11:51:49 AM  

#4  Aris, I think that's correct. If you don't like having the royals, you probably don't want to be a Brit, and you should submit your application to Iceland, where they don't have one, or Greece, where they used to have one. Why would you want to be a citizen of someplace you don't like?
Posted by: Fred   2003-8-6 10:15:59 AM  

#3  The UK was a democracy long before the Greeks relearned the meaning of the word. :-) And just a few years after that they forgot it anew and handled power to an unelected body sitting into the barbarian (ancient Greek definition) of Brussels.
Posted by: JFM   2003-8-6 10:02:21 AM  

#2  So, if this includes an oath of allegiance to the Queen does that mean that people which would like to see the monarchy abolished would no longer be allowed to become British citizens? Or "subjects" as I think they're called over there?
Posted by: Aris Katsaris   2003-8-6 9:08:11 AM  

#1  The Britishness Test sounds like a great skit for Monty Python or the like.

I think they should make the buggers watch two episodes of Benny Hill. If they don't laugh, out you go!
Posted by: Penguin   2003-8-6 4:23:45 AM  

00:00