-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Algerian woman denied French citizenship over [refused] handshake
- Thread starter signal
- Start date
- Status
France asks of you to not show religious garnments in public places, the rule is in place since 1905 for any religion. The hijab, burqa or niqab is not mendatory in the religious writings, why is it so difficult to not wear it when asked to ?
Like I said earlier: I think forcing people to pledge allegiance to the Queen of England to get Canadian citizenship is incredibly dumb and I'd certainly favour waiving this requirement.
However, if someone refused to swear this oath because the queen is a woman, I'd be more than happy to deny them citizenship. Their reasoning is rooted in misogyny, and the host country certainly doesn't have to oblige them.
However, if someone refused to swear this oath because the queen is a woman, I'd be more than happy to deny them citizenship. Their reasoning is rooted in misogyny, and the host country certainly doesn't have to oblige them.
Yeah this is what this story reminded me of. Pence refusing to be alone in a room with another woman. What a fucking goof that guy is and people like him are
As far as the woman refusing to shake the French guy's hand and being denied citizenship? Well sucks to suck. Immigration is a two way street and she has to give a little and assimilate. Though something tells me that her intention was to make a grand political statement.
Im ok with this
Citizensdhip is a process of naturalization
If you cant respect the customs, you cannot naturalize
She will still get Pr tho
Citizensdhip is a process of naturalization
If you cant respect the customs, you cannot naturalize
She will still get Pr tho
lol the woman refuses to shake hands for the sole reason that the official on duty is a man and this is France who is prejudiced. The government doesn't care about your religion. However you have to follow the process like everyone else regardless of race, gender or religion.
Should it be legal in the US to discriminate against gay people because of religious beliefs that gay people are unnatural or whatever dumb shit some christians like to believe?
As for this woman. She does have the freedom to not shake hands, no one is gonna haul her off to prison or kick her out of the country for not doing so. But just like in the US, freedom of expression or speech, is not also freedom of consequence. In this instance her action shows pretty clearly that even after living in France for a 8 years, she has refused to engage in even the most common of social norms due to her religious beliefs.
Someone who, even after 8 years of living in a country, refuses such a basic social interaction due to religiously held beliefs that are rooted in misogyny, should not be given citizenship. Refusal to shake the hand of the opposite sex goes against gender equality in a huge way and should clearly not be something that France accepts in the people it allows to become citizens.
You don't make a compromise at your own house. It's the invited party who needs to adapt.
How does having radical right wing muslims that hate gays, other religions ect help France's diverse citizenry?
Rather then spewing some bullshit please actually explain how that helps people in France having more far right religious nuts.
Just because your ideas are better then someone else's doesn't mean you owe it to society to talk to them.
Remember what happened when we thought that when a certain cartoon was made? What happened to them?
Why does a country owe it to radical religious people to try and convert them to bring them in when there are millions of people that are better qualified from the same religion that don't hold just disgusting views
What shit? I'm just curious. I know that french people have the reputation of being rude, doesn't give tip, doesn't try to speak the language of the country they visit. But what else?
Without who? Muslims?
Also refusing a hand shake = OK with barbaric practices? Just call this woman a terrorist while you are at it, why don't you?
The fuck of course it is.
It's like a batsignal for "my religion overrides your values and norms" even though the handshake counterpart is the literal gatekeeper for what she is applying/asking.
There is something seriously amiss if you are uncompromising to the point that you can't even shake some dudes hand yo gain citizenship.
I wonder if people would have a problem if the guy said she need to perform him a sexual favor to get citizenship, and she cited her religion as a reason not to.
Her body, her choice. Period. From a handshake to a hug to something more. If she doesn't want someone touching her, she doesn't want someone touching her. No wonder we have a problem with consent in Western society, lmao.
Her body, her choice. Period. From a handshake to a hug to something more. If she doesn't want someone touching her, she doesn't want someone touching her. No wonder we have a problem with consent in Western society, lmao.
Stop putting words in people's mouth and distorting what they say like that. This is not OK.
...You forgot the /s, right?
Elaborate please? Who would France be better of without?
Why would this woman be OK with barbaric practices?
The context makes it clear here that the poster you were quoting was referring to religious extremists, not Muslims. As for why this woman is likely to be a hardliner conservative, this has been explained over and over in the thread.
In any case, if you want a poster to elaborate, you can ask them to, but distorting and misrepresenting what they say in order to attack them is frowned upon. I hope you understand.
I'm not seeing the words put into anyone's mouth. The guy says they're fine with "medieval bullshit" and "throwing gays off of roofs." all from a handshake. Include seems pretty on point that saying something like that is pretty much as far as you can go without literally saying the word terrorist.
Using Strawman rethoric is a bad way to argue, and can get you banned.
Scoo was being hyperbolic, that's true, but they never said that France was "better off without Muslims", which is not a honest or charitable take on their post.
He made it clear? Really? Where is that? Where is the context exactly? We are discussing a woman who refused a hand shake not an extremists.
"likely" conservative? Perhaps or perhaps she is only conservative in certain aspects that involve her body and who has access to it.
Again though regarding the poster above how does that equate her with her being OK with barbaric practices? And France would be better off without her?
I think you're assuming too much about what they meant when they add "medieval bullshit" and killing gay people in there. There's a difference between people like you who have reasonable points about this, and the load of people who are coming in here just to bash on Muslims in general. And I don't think anything is being mischaracterized when people point out that what they're saying.
Please elaborate.
I mean, no. Perhaps I got a bit too hyperbolic, and I apologize for that, Islamophobia against Muslim women in particular gets me heated, but I'm not being sarcastic.
I just don't see how refusing a handshake should lead to her being unable to be a citizen. Sure, if she said something like "women should be subservient to men and are lesser and thus shouldn't touch other men", then I understand why she'd be refused, that's a toxic view to hold. But from what I'm reading in the OP, it just seems like, given her upbringing, she's just not comfortable shaking his hand, much in the same way someone would be uncomfortable with other unwanted bodily contact.
Like, would someone who was uncomfortable shaking his hand for non-religious reasons be refused? If so, that's a problem as well. People have boundaries and they should be respected. Maybe I'm completely misunderstanding what's going on here though and she did say something misogynistic.
People refusing the most basic of accommodations for a country they purport to want to be part of as a citizen seems to be the height of cultural arrogance.
France isn't inviting this person to become a citizen. I assume they filled put forms and passed at least some basic tests to get that far.
France isn't inviting this person to become a citizen. I assume they filled put forms and passed at least some basic tests to get that far.
You know if you have to construct some unrelated case to have a point then you haven't a point at all.
A person who suffers mysophobia would explain the situation and especially wouldn't deny the handshake with one specific gender for mysophobia related reasons.
I will call it being ignorant and xenophobic. Anyone who read that post can put 1 and 1 together and I fail to see how I added anything else to it, it's basically WYSIWYG kind of post.
Also implying that she is OK with murdering people is the definition of her being or aligned with terrorism as well. So he said it without saying it. Just like the France will be better off without "them" and so on.
I'm open to discuss it more on PM or be referred to an admin if I'm on the wrong here and not that xenophobic post.
Not strawman, I called out straight out xenophobia which I also reported.
LOL, highly underrated post, goes exactly with this.
EDIT: To add onto the OP. I am not sure I disagree with France here, but it could be that I simply can't relate to that woman. Such values should be frowned upon and reduced, not okay'd and increased.
Sorry, but in terms of morality here, I just can't back her especially because France laws do have it where you have to assimilate. A basic handshake is very easy to compromise on and this is why many people try to fight against immigration, people don't want an increase in values like that (exception of the racists and bigots) and frankly they shouldn't.
Depends on the context you are referring to. Is the context a business that generally accommodates the public? Then no. In a private facility? They shouldn't discriminate, but they have the right to.
No, in the US almost all speech/expression except libelous or physically threatening speech is exempt from interference from the government. Consequences for such speech can only come from private institutions or when you are requesting a privilege from the government. While I assume openly racist/bigoted/extremist people are generally impeded from citizenship in the US via the background check (though, maybe they aren't? I'd have to research it), a person not shaking hands would never bar a person from attaining citizenship. Why? Because that's an absurd standard that says NOTHING about who they are as a person. All of you in this thread are ASSUMING she's misogynist simply because she doesn't abide your magic talisman standards of common behavior. That's bigoted on your part and on the part of the French government.
See above. You're assuming alot here. Like I said, I'd understand better if the person were openly racist or something like that.
A country nor a government is a house. The scale is so completely different that it renders your analogy absurd. The government should accommodate as many varieties of people as it can, as vigorously as it can- such is the project of western liberal democracy. Insular thinking like this will lead us down the slippery slope of tribalism, I don't care how many courts, constitutions, and declarations of human rights you purport to uphold. The only truly peaceful future is one where all tribes are welcome, so long as they peaceable exist among one another. The irony is that the Italian, French, and English scholars that began the Renaissance would disagree with this attitude were they born today.
It makes the country better the same way a boxer getting hit in the face over time makes him a better boxer. The government must be able to take a hit, Its institutions must be continuously tested in the crucible of chaos that is a true liberal democracy. Insulating yourself from speech you disagree with makes you vulnerable to the demagogue when he or she inevitably arrives. The Charlie Hebdo (is that how you spell it?) was a punch in the face for France and the west generally. It made us stronger, and more experienced in dealing with violent protest and establishing boundaries between peacable assembly and the violent kind. The same is true of the U.S. and Charlottesville. A country owes it to radical religious people to invite them in because no one has a monopoly on the best way for humans to exist- if there is a best way. As long as these extremists seem willing to abide by critical state functions (which don't include hand shaking), they should be welcome in a liberal western democracy. Much of the time, their ideas are tempered in our democracies as a cultural exchange occurs*.
*Cultural exchange can only happen when there is not segregation. This is why I say that desegregation of public accommodations is critical to the functions of the state. Without desegregation, you get a state within a state, and that is not usually desirable.
Last edited:
Elaborate?
You want me to elaborate why the above post is dumb? The post where you've created a totally abhorrent situation for anyone to experience and you're wondering if people would have a problem with it? And if they do, they're somehow being hypocritical with the handshake situation in the OP? You really want me to elaborate on why that's a dumb post? Also, do you believe consent is not a problem outside of "Western" societies as suggested by that last line in your post?
And even a mod told you that you are just plain unnecessary hostile
I'm trying to comprehend what you've said here but I don't understand. It's not unrelated. It's directly related. It has to do with someone being forced to touch someone else against their will. This is a case that could without a doubt be used to deny that mysophobic person, or someone with gender-related trauma, from becoming a citizen.
Unless, again, her directly stated belief was misogynistic, there's no reason she, a woman, should have been refused citizenship for not wanting a man to touch her. And if it was, then I understand why she was refused. But if she wasn't, it's confusing and just seems to be forcing someone into something they don't want to do.
Women in patriarchal societies, which France still very much is, have their reasons for not wanting men to touch them, and I, as a man, have no right to tell them they're wrong, unless it's something that directly harms other women. I was perhaps overly hyperbolic by, admittedly, making such a horrible comparison, and I apologize for that.
And no, obviously it isn't, I would not be anywhere near so stupid to suggest that. But a lot of people think it isn't a problem at all in the West.
Re-reading the post in question, the hyperbole about throwing gays off building is a bit much and does go too far. I would advise everyone to lay off from making hyperbolic and/or drive-by comments and comparisons. We can disagree over what the ruling means without using inflammatory rhetoric or throwing wild accusations. ^^
Last edited:
What's your opinion when she says she doesn't want her kids going to mixed gender schools, practises hate speech against Jewish and gay people? The fact is everything leading up to citizenship is screening to see if French society will benefit from adding you. If they think it won't then why should they let you in
Did she display or say she has any of those beliefs? I don't see it in the article. If she held such beliefs and openly spoke such during the citizenship process, then, yeah, that's fine grounds for disqualification - on it being misogynistic or anti-Semitic or homophobic. But assuming she has them just because she doesn't want to shake a man's hand isn't good. And based on the fact this is the one thing that is keeping her from becoming fully French, I'm guessing she doesn't hold such beliefs.
You think someone that believes in such a radical idea such as a women can not touch a man that's not her husband ever isn't a a far right Muslim? Is she a moderate then?
I think it's a jump to assume the rest of someone's belief set based on one ultimately inconsequential action to everyone but the person in question. People have their individual beliefs. And so long as those beliefs are not based upon bigotry and do not actively enable hate crimes, there's no harm in them, and they should not be infringed upon. Again, I will reiterate, if she says it's because she thinks women are to be owned by men and she's literally owned by her husband, then sure, that's bad, and grounds to not be allowed citizenship. But maybe, to her, any skin-to-skin or bodily contact is just a very personal thing that she doesn't want to share with people she doesn't trust. We just don't know. The article, whether purposefully or because the facts aren't known, leaves out a lot.
Like, let's look at what we know, again.
She's Muslim. She doesn't think anyone she's not related to should shake her hand based on her beliefs, which were not furthered upon. She was thus refused citizenship. She then said she thought her rights were infringed upon, but a court said otherwise. That's literally all we know.
Let's not forget that many Muslim women with very progressive, feminist views who think all women should be allowed to wear what they want still choose to wear hijabs, niqabs, and other such coverings due to personal modesty reasons. How do we know that this isn't the same sort of deal? We just don't. And, again, as I said again in this very post, should it be shown she displayed misogynist views, then, yes, it makes sense to be denied that citizenship. But she didn't. She just said she didn't want to shake the guy's hand because it was against her beliefs.
I don't get it. She wishes to practice her faith (e.g. not touching other men outside of marriage, which is a perfectly sensible thing). This is part of her faith; it's what she believes in. You can choose to disagree, fair enough, but if you're hurt/offended by someone choosing not to shake your hand (whether it's for personal reasons or because you have shit on your hands), then, frankly, you're a wuss. Everyone on this planet has their own ideals. As long as those ideals don't hurt other people, then I don't see any problem.
And anyway, a handshake is just a social construct that has no physical benefits, so this really isn't a big deal.
And anyway, a handshake is just a social construct that has no physical benefits, so this really isn't a big deal.
That is petty much the worst argument I have heard in a good while.
That's nothing at all like this situation and you're grasping real hard.
Just no.
France did the right call.
Firstly, do you actually think that not touching men, as if the mere concept of touch was somehow sexual or even dirty, is sensible? I'd like to hear why.
Anyway, yes, it is part of her faith, but I don't think she offended or hurt anyone by refusing the handshake. She just showed that her priorities lie with her faith rather than with getting the citizenship.
While you are correct that everyone on this planet has their own ideals, something like societal norms exists. If the citizenship is granted to people who integrate into a society, then refusing to shake hands is obviously ground for refusal.
It being a social construct is the entire point here.
Religion is a social construct, so it's not really the big deal she made it out to be.
The article explicitly mentions she refused the handshake on religious grounds, for what it's worth. I'm sure that she'd not forget to say that this is a matter of personal and not religious discomfort if she took this to court.
If this is what diversity looks like, I'd rather not live in a "diverse" country.
- Status