...and that's obviously less likely in France than in Algeria.
-
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.
Algerian woman denied French citizenship over [refused] handshake
- Thread starter signal
- Start date
- Status
...and that's obviously less likely in France than in Algeria.
you see, some people are trying real hard to find Islamaphobia everywhere in the West under every nook and cranny just to go defend something for the sake of defending something
So by wanting citizens who believe in gender equality/ non gender segregation/ citizens who can interact with each other, France has went off the deep end?
No, they're OK with citizens that don't believe in gender equality, so long as that belief doesn't stem from Islam.
Are devout Christians being denied French citizenship?
I don't understand why we can't stick together as a culture, like any other immigrant group. Islam certain has problems, but we are people, and we don't have to justify out culture to anyone.
Someone who has a culture of swapping wives and hide it under dancing n say dat "can I dance with ur wife and u dance with mine", to them a handshake to someone else's wife dont make a diff to them.
U can't touch the "princess" but u can touch my wife. Can't argue about a handshake topic.
(Lebron James touches the princess while taking a picture n all hell breaks loose). But when someone says dont touch my wife or she says dont touch me I'm only for my husband it's called oppressio
U can't touch the "princess" but u can touch my wife. Can't argue about a handshake topic.
(Lebron James touches the princess while taking a picture n all hell breaks loose). But when someone says dont touch my wife or she says dont touch me I'm only for my husband it's called oppressio
Last edited:
Yup.
This changes very little, honestly. A country's citizenship test will always contain arbitrary things, customs, etc. You want that country's citizenship? That's on you to respect those. Otherwise, stay a resident permanent, or find citizenship to a country that fits your cultural values. It's simple, really. If I wanted to emigrate to a country and they asked me to do something that was a complete dealbreaker to gain citizenship, then I'd just think "k, fuck off I'm not doing this" and probably go elsewhere or remain a resident.
One could definitely argue that it's not a harmless belief, but one rooted in sexism. Someone so very staunchly conservative that they won't even shake the hand of the opposite sex clearly has extremely rigid cultural values that may not be compatible with the values of the host country.
Disagreeing over this does not make someone inherently xenophobic, and accusing a minority/immigrant of xenophobia like that is pretty tone deaf. Knock it off.
Well then. You will have better luck contacting an admin than posting this in a random thread if that's what you really want, but I do believe you are overreacting here. We don't tolerate sexism and misogyny here at all. If you think a post is sexist, please report it. But, hey, your call. :\
Last edited:
Shouldn't let either of them in. I don't know why people would want to add any form of crazy to their country.
What are you talking about?
Also, I love how in both instances in the bold everything is done for the benefit of the husband. Where's her agency?
Don't conflate Islam with this particular instance. There's nothing wrong with being a Muslim and nothing wrong with practicing that faith. The narrative coming from both politics and media groups surrounding Islam ever since the start of the attack has been abhorrent, and there's a clear targeting on the community ever since then.
However there's some things that you can't accept as a society and misogyny and sexism should be among them. I personally belief that the fact she couldn't pass that formality shows a particular brand of Islamism.
Marocco Algeria and Tunisia are actually the top 3 origin of people granted the French citizenship.
That's kinda what I was getting at, I just saw people implying the decision was stepping on her religious expression, specifically because she's Muslim. But really, if any cultural difference, religious or otherwise, is too incompatible that's something the individual seeking citizenship has to figure out.
Like I said earlier, if you want to simply visit a country you should make an effort to familiarize and be willing to participate in their cultural 101's. To be a citizen you really gotta try making an effort. That doesn't mean abandoning your old culture, but understanding that you're in a different culture now and making the necessary changes and concessions.
Agreed. Plenty of Muslims, Algerian or otherwise, emigrate to France just fine after all.
What would've happen if she didnt have any arms or hands. God forbid. Does she still get citizenship? Lol
I respect your opinion, but out experiences may differ. It's actually not that simple, speaking as a minority in my own country and considered a foreigner in the country I study in currently, it's extremely complex. France, like many Western countries, are actively hurting Arabs and Muslims in the world—Canada selling weapons to Saudi Arabia, that directly affect my community, but, people from these regions are discriminated against when we go to Western countries. Culture is just imprinted in you, especially if you spent the majority of your time in this culture, you can't just give up apart of you that simply. Many people can't find a country that will give them good chances for success, be safe for them, and a comfortable cultural existence—and at the end, most people just want to stay in their own country.
Yes sexism does exist in different Islamic cultures, however, it shouldn't define us as a people, which a lot of people do when they talk about us in general. We have problems to work through, and it takes time.
User Warned: Generalizing the populace of a country
But that will never happen because they're xenophobic and hate Muslims.
User Banned (1 Week): Sexism. Account still in junior phase.
Typical response.
In reverse the husband would do that also in her "benefit". He wouldn't shake hands with another girl also cuz he respects her even if she dont herself. Shes someone's daughter or wife. If you're okay with random people touching ur wifes hands go for it bro :)
But that will never happen because they're xenophobic and hate Muslims.
Not really, they have a ton of Muslim immigrants. I think France is the European country that takes in the most.
Fine is a subjective term. Arabs are marginalized in French society, there are neighbourhoods that are marginalized. I agree that not all Muslims do this, as a muslim myself.
For the people that support this decision, tell me... Would you also support the deportation of any native born French citizen for the offense of not shaking a French official's hand? Surely, you must, right?
Oh, but that's not a fair comparison to make right? Because the point of this decision is to ensure the successful integration and assimilation into French society, and as native-born French citizens that doesn't appluy to them, right?
Ah, but there in lies the rub! The word integration! If that's truly the goal, then surely it shouldn't matter one iota whether someone's a native citizen or not. Because surely, the point is to promote one homogeneous culture and discourage any threats to that culture no? To keep our anyone who doesn't fit?
Why, then, should citizenship matter at all? If this woman can't possibly assimilate with French culture because she refused to shake a man's hand, then surely that means that anyone, regardless of whether they're native-born or not, are just as incompatible with French culture if they refuse to shake someone's hand, no? That's the point if all this, right? That incompatibility, and as a result of that incompatibility, being a threat to French culture in some way or another?
That being the case, if anyone supports this, surely they must support deportation of any French citizens who also refuse to shake anyone's hand, at any point in their lives. After all, that demonstrates theyre incompatible with French culture, and we can't have that apparently, and therefore they must be let go to protect the sanctity and purity of this culture.
...Unless, that is, it actually is fine for native-born French citizens to refuse to shake anyone's hand they want, for whatever reason they want. Because, in fact, such behavior does not in any way stop them from successfully interacting with and being a part of French society and living healthy, productive lives within that society in any way. That the behavior harms no one and changes nothing and has no bearing on whether they're a successful and productive part of society in any way and makes no difference to anyone, so long as they're native-born.
...So why then would the situation magically be any different when the person is not native-born, but a foreigner?
Why does nobody care when someone who is native-born engages in this behavior (or rather, lack of behavior I suppose), and the idea of kicking someone out over it and revoking their citizenship would be crazy talk, but yet when it instead is a foreigner engaging in this behavior, it suddenly would be crazy NOT to kick them out and make sure they get nowhere close to French society over it? What's good for the goose is surely good for the gander, right? Is the behavior a threat to French society or isn't it, and if it is, why does that fact seem contingent on whether someone's a native born French citizen or not?
Thinking about it like that, at least for me personally, there's no way I can be cool with this. This isn't something actively enforced on existing natural-born French citizens as part of their daily lives and makes no difference to them either way and nobody cares, so how could I possibly alright with this being a part of the citizenship process as some type of make-or-break deal, when it quite clearly isn't for anyone who is already French and nobody cares one iota? It's all a bunch of nonsense and no way I could be cool with that.
And to be clear, I do not mean to compare religion to mental illness at all. I don't think anything of the sort, and fuck anyone who does that. I only bring it up to show how the same harmless behavior is considered a-okas long as it's not relating to religion at all, but as soon as it is, we treat it completely differently. Same behavior. Same lack of harm. But because it's religiously motivated instead of based on an irrational fear if gerns or whatever, suddenly an issue.
This whole thing just screams of thought crime to me. That yes, of course, shaking or not shaking hands doesn't really matter at all. But it must be a sign of something more! It must be! If she doesn't refuse to shake hands, who knows what else she will or won't do!
But that's the thing--that's all baseless conjecture, and it just really, really rubs me the wrong way to go there and just seems way too close to thought crime for my personal comfort. As sure, it could be a sign of something more. Or, it could just as easily not be. So why even go there and assume the worst? Especially when the behavior is not seen as problematic otherwise (as in the case of OCD). Especially in the case of such a harmless behavior. Just why even go there?
It doesn't make sense to me at all and I can't possibly be alright with denying someone citizenship over something so harmless.
Oh, but that's not a fair comparison to make right? Because the point of this decision is to ensure the successful integration and assimilation into French society, and as native-born French citizens that doesn't appluy to them, right?
Ah, but there in lies the rub! The word integration! If that's truly the goal, then surely it shouldn't matter one iota whether someone's a native citizen or not. Because surely, the point is to promote one homogeneous culture and discourage any threats to that culture no? To keep our anyone who doesn't fit?
Why, then, should citizenship matter at all? If this woman can't possibly assimilate with French culture because she refused to shake a man's hand, then surely that means that anyone, regardless of whether they're native-born or not, are just as incompatible with French culture if they refuse to shake someone's hand, no? That's the point if all this, right? That incompatibility, and as a result of that incompatibility, being a threat to French culture in some way or another?
That being the case, if anyone supports this, surely they must support deportation of any French citizens who also refuse to shake anyone's hand, at any point in their lives. After all, that demonstrates theyre incompatible with French culture, and we can't have that apparently, and therefore they must be let go to protect the sanctity and purity of this culture.
...Unless, that is, it actually is fine for native-born French citizens to refuse to shake anyone's hand they want, for whatever reason they want. Because, in fact, such behavior does not in any way stop them from successfully interacting with and being a part of French society and living healthy, productive lives within that society in any way. That the behavior harms no one and changes nothing and has no bearing on whether they're a successful and productive part of society in any way and makes no difference to anyone, so long as they're native-born.
...So why then would the situation magically be any different when the person is not native-born, but a foreigner?
Why does nobody care when someone who is native-born engages in this behavior (or rather, lack of behavior I suppose), and the idea of kicking someone out over it and revoking their citizenship would be crazy talk, but yet when it instead is a foreigner engaging in this behavior, it suddenly would be crazy NOT to kick them out and make sure they get nowhere close to French society over it? What's good for the goose is surely good for the gander, right? Is the behavior a threat to French society or isn't it, and if it is, why does that fact seem contingent on whether someone's a native born French citizen or not?
Thinking about it like that, at least for me personally, there's no way I can be cool with this. This isn't something actively enforced on existing natural-born French citizens as part of their daily lives and makes no difference to them either way and nobody cares, so how could I possibly alright with this being a part of the citizenship process as some type of make-or-break deal, when it quite clearly isn't for anyone who is already French and nobody cares one iota? It's all a bunch of nonsense and no way I could be cool with that.
Cause I can only presume that say if she refused to shake hands because she has severe OCD, nobody would have an issue and everyone would just try to accommodate that (and for good reason of course). Same behavior, different outcome.
And to be clear, I do not mean to compare religion to mental illness at all. I don't think anything of the sort, and fuck anyone who does that. I only bring it up to show how the same harmless behavior is considered a-okas long as it's not relating to religion at all, but as soon as it is, we treat it completely differently. Same behavior. Same lack of harm. But because it's religiously motivated instead of based on an irrational fear if gerns or whatever, suddenly an issue.
This whole thing just screams of thought crime to me. That yes, of course, shaking or not shaking hands doesn't really matter at all. But it must be a sign of something more! It must be! If she doesn't refuse to shake hands, who knows what else she will or won't do!
But that's the thing--that's all baseless conjecture, and it just really, really rubs me the wrong way to go there and just seems way too close to thought crime for my personal comfort. As sure, it could be a sign of something more. Or, it could just as easily not be. So why even go there and assume the worst? Especially when the behavior is not seen as problematic otherwise (as in the case of OCD). Especially in the case of such a harmless behavior. Just why even go there?
It doesn't make sense to me at all and I can't possibly be alright with denying someone citizenship over something so harmless.
Oh, certainly. I am not saying that France is some discrimination-free utopia, and I apologize if that's how my post came across. I only meant that plenty of Muslims have no problem passing the citizenship test and integrating into French society, and that this handshake thing is a dealbreaker only for an incredibly tiny subset of hardliner and extremely rigid conservative Muslims.
This woman is living legally in france right? And will continue to do so right?
If this is correct i don't see the big fuss about, she is not much being denied citizenship as she is being denied nationality.
If this is correct i don't see the big fuss about, she is not much being denied citizenship as she is being denied nationality.
I'll just say that for me there's value that you want to upheld as a country, and value you don't want to promote. A natural born French citizen or a naturalized one for that matter is French, there's nothing to question there even if they hold views not compatible with the society. However when you're trying to bring in people, you have to ask yourself if this is what you want to promote in the French society or not.
That's why in the same way country generally don't want former criminal to get citizenship while not questioning the citizenship of their criminals.
I'm sorry that my posts are kind of direct, I'm just used to hearing people excuse or even wave-off Arabs being discriminated against. You are right, many Muslims pass the test, and because we have different experiences, rules, and costumes. Many people don't mind shaking hand. Although, I don't necessarily agree that everyone who does this is a hardliner, I would say some, but, some Muslim women that I've known my whole life, genuinely feel uncomfortable shaking hands with a man they don't know, and they are 100% not extremely conservative, they are really awesome women, and inclusive. Some might say that's internalized sexism, however, it's hard to determine other people's experiences.
This case is not a representation of all women who do refuse.
Also, thank you for being patient with me, it's sometimes hard to express these thoughts, because I understand that my culture has problems, but also, I don't want it as a tool for us being discriminated.
I wonder, if the citizenship official had been female, perhaps this lady would have surreptitiously gotten her citizenship?
Anyway. The issue isn't that she refused a handshake because she doesn't believe in handshakes. Her reason for refusing the handshake were made quite clear (religious belief rooted in sexism), and this reason is what the French government objected to. To them, this sexist belief is harmful, not harmless.
As for ejecting current citizens, I don't think it's a valid comparison. Citizenship tests often contain requirements that are not imposed on native born people for obvious logistics and practical reasons (like those history tests that most of us born here would probably fail xD). Are they arbitrary and often silly? Yes, sure. But does this mean those countries should forego these requirements for the citizenship process of immigrants? Probably not. For example, apparently in Canada you have to swear fealty to the Queen of England. I think that's dumb, and far more offensive than shaking some guy's hand. I definitely think the Canadian government shouldn't impose that. But, if someone refused to swear fealty to the Queen because she's a woman, I would support my country in refusing this person entry. It won't root out sexist jerks that are born here, but that's no reason why we should let anymore in. :)
I heard Gregg from accounting high-fived her after she snagged him the last asiago bagel.
What has this thread become
I actually wonder if any of this shit would have happened if it was a devout male who refused to shake hands with a female representative.
But why? It's clearly not a problem if native-born French citizens do it, so why's it matter if anyone else are? You're basically admitting to holding immigrant to a higher standard, but I don't see an actual justifiable reason as to why. If that standard is not applied consistently, if it doesn't matter one iota whether native-born citizens give a fuck about these supposedly sacrosanct rules or not, why is it suddenly a problem if foreigners and immigrants do or don't? Is it vital to follow these rules, or isn't it?
Can you be a successful part of French society regardless of whether or not you follow these customs and norms, or no? Why hold immigrants up to a higher standard than your own citizens, to the point where whether you shake someone's hand of all things is a make or break deal for an immigrant, but I can only presume never one for native citizens? Why go to that length of a double standard and hold them up THAT much higher than any native citizen ever is?
I can't conclude anything else from that but xenophobia. Either it's part of the house rules or it's not. If you don't care about whether native-born citizens ever follow the norms and French culture and actually do everything spick and span or not, why does it matter if immigrants and citizenship-applicants do or don't? I just can't be alright with that kind of double standard and can't see it any other way.
Natives are entitled to citizenship, foreigners aren't, and a country can refuse to allow immigrants with sexist values into their society even if they aren't as capable of eradicating sexism in their own citizens-by-right. That doesn't mean they should accept sexist immigrants but that they need to work harder to combat sexism in their own country.
Incidentally, I'm going to Canada for university this fall and I *just* learned about having to swear allegiance to the Queen. That's gonna suck, since I want to obtain citizenship there :/
Incidentally, I'm going to Canada for university this fall and I *just* learned about having to swear allegiance to the Queen. That's gonna suck, since I want to obtain citizenship there :/
On the one hand, you could argue that handshakes and Western professional etiquette are just as much a part of the naturalization process as civics and language lessons. And it's not really normal to encounter women like this; I've shaken hands with plenty of hijab-clad women and girls in professional settings.
On the other hand, maybe they could have accepted a bow or a fist bump or something.
On the other hand, maybe they could have accepted a bow or a fist bump or something.
You can't hold immigrants to the same standards as native-born citizens because there is no standard for native born citizens. This is the case for every country in the world. A country does not owe foreign born people citizenship and it is within their right to refuse people.
Right. Like I said, just because you can't destroy all sexism in your native country, doesn't mean you have to let anymore in. Actually, I'm sure there's a fallacy name for this, but I'm coming up short right now. xD
I'm sure it counts if you mentally (or even physically? maybe not push your luck though, lol) cross your fingers... ;)
This.
Sadly, we're stuck with the homophobic, racist, sexist natives who all we can do is throw in jail.
Good news is, hopefully we can prevent more from getting into the country.
To be clear, I'm of course well aware of why citizenship is never stripped from native-born citizens. Because if cours that would create the problem of stateless individuals who have nowhere to call home, a fundamental violation of human rights and treaties regarding them such as the Declaration of Human Rights, etc, and for very good reason.
Me bringing up the idea is not a serious suggestion of course but rather just rhetoric to establish that such behaviors and whether people engage in them or not are in no way a prerequisite or necessary condition for French citizenship, and have absolutely zero bearing on whether someone can actually successfully integrate themselves into French society or not.
That is to say, the point being that if native born French citizens can go about their daily lives and nobody cares whether they follow these norms or not, and no one would suggest so much as a FINE, nevermind deportation, not even do much as a miniscule fine for French citizens for not abiding by these norms and customs, it just seems odd to me to suddenly care whether some citizenship-applicant does or doesn't.
After all, if this is such a necessary part of French daily life that rejecting a citizenship request over it makes perfect sense, surely it must be important enough to French daily live that French citizens would support fining anyone, not even talking about criminalization it snything, but a simple fine of any French citizens that refuse to do do? Surely that at least would not be too much to as?
But yet, I wager even a minor fine very likely would be and would struggle to find widespread support. And indeed that furthermore that's because many French citizens would make no difference at all, harms no one, is not worthwhile I'm any way, and has nothing in of itself to do with how well integrated a person is. So it would seem really hard to say it actually had anything to do with French citizenship or whatever in any way.
So why suddenly bring it up in regards to citizenship-applicants such as this woman? It clearly makes no difference at all in any other circumstance, so why draw the line here and act like it suddenly does and that it suddenly does tell you something and suddenly is important, when it's not in any other situation? That's all I'm getting at.
Of course nonetheless they have every right to do that and make whatever requirements in citizenship they like. That isn't in question. Of course they have the legal right to make the restriction. But that doesn't make it a good requirement/restriction or something that should be continued to be used and it shouldn't be supported just because of legal right regardless.
I understand the question. But I think the answer isn't "Why are you enforcing this in immigration when you don't enforce this on citizens?"
I think the answer is "Why aren't you enforcing this on citizens while you are enforcing this on immigrants?"
This is a step in the right direction. This actually matters to any culture, including French culture. Explicitly cracking down on sexist norms and customs is a good thing. I think what we (or French society) need to do is to encourage this stringence in other areas of French law instead of saying "y'know what it don't really matter". Instead of extrapolating that France doesn't care about sexist norms at all, we should encourage countries to crack down on sexism by anyone.
You couldn't have chosen a more appropriate gif. Such backwards thinking is truly astounding.
What has this thread become
I thought this would be obvious... Why France, a secular country which recognise no other law other than its own, should assign another official to accommodate the special wims of anyone? France is not asking her to take the citizenship, she is the one requesting it.
"The decision was clearly made to spite her for her religion" lol yes keep playing the poor victim when she is the one who refused to shake hands with a man (the horror).
Good on France. It is the correct decision. Someone is not even willing to shake a hand, she does not fulfill the integration requirements.
As usual in those sorts of threads, I'm amazed to what lenghts some users will go to defend completely backwards religious-political behavior and traditions. Especcially given how evangelical christians usually get taken apart in similar threads (and rightfully, a lot of them are crazy fundamentalist). That is what I call faux-progressivm (joining when it's time to shit on the West, then suddenly doing a 180° and defending ultraconservatism when it's about your own culture; while of course I don't keep list whether that's the exact same users, I'd be very surprised if it was two completely different batches of posters).
As usual in those sorts of threads, I'm amazed to what lenghts some users will go to defend completely backwards religious-political behavior and traditions. Especcially given how evangelical christians usually get taken apart in similar threads (and rightfully, a lot of them are crazy fundamentalist). That is what I call faux-progressivm (joining when it's time to shit on the West, then suddenly doing a 180° and defending ultraconservatism when it's about your own culture; while of course I don't keep list whether that's the exact same users, I'd be very surprised if it was two completely different batches of posters).
In Germany I have heard personally from people that work in community centres that it's the men that refuse to shake hands with any woman, the women have been fine with it (they are community centres that help them learn the language, customs, liberal values, etc).
The fact is that handshakes are the formal way of greeting men and women in a lot of places in the world, not just Europe, when a refugee or migrant goes for a tour/interview for a job, they're going to have to shake hands, it's helping them understanding the customs of where they are, you're not going to get any where if you don't adopt the customs of any country you go to.
The fact is that handshakes are the formal way of greeting men and women in a lot of places in the world, not just Europe, when a refugee or migrant goes for a tour/interview for a job, they're going to have to shake hands, it's helping them understanding the customs of where they are, you're not going to get any where if you don't adopt the customs of any country you go to.
good point,
goes to job interview.... doesn't shake hand ... recruiter will go "okay.... scratch that one"
can't function in society without a job
I was taught to follow my religion but also within reason.
Just shake their hand and go in, a handshake is practically nothing.
Now I won't share my opinion on how about feel about France denying her, lot of things France has done lately just irk me.
But this could've all been avoidable.
Just shake their hand and go in, a handshake is practically nothing.
Now I won't share my opinion on how about feel about France denying her, lot of things France has done lately just irk me.
But this could've all been avoidable.
Well it's not just for getting a job, a handshake is the expectation of all in a formal greeting, even if you work depending on what you do you're likely going to do a lot of handshakes internally or externally, it's just community centres with an orientation to help people understand the customs and values of where they are and how to adapt, it's to help them not force them. It's like me going to their country and wanting to shake peoples hands when I greet them, they're going to have a negative response and feelings towards that because I do not understand their customs, if I don't understand the place I am in, I'm not going to get very far with much. If you won't do a simple gender neutral and irreligious greeting how will you ever integrate if that's the crux?
This.
She obviously is not someone who is going to assimilate well into France.
Having said that - if you look at the state of France this is definitely the case of closing the stable door after the horse has bolted.
She refuses to interact with people? Yeah no, can't defend that. France is 100% in the right here.
I have little issue with this. "Religious freedom" is a plague infecting many liberal democracies. I say that as a person of religion who also believes in secular government.
- Status