Discussion in 'EtcetEra' started by signal, Apr 20, 2018.
Are devout Christians being denied French citizenship?
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
Also, I love how in both instances in the bold everything is done for the benefit of the husband. Where's her agency?
Also, France has a large Muslim immigrant population so I don't know why people in this thread are trying to act like they don't let them in..
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.
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.
What would've happen if she didnt have any arms or hands. God forbid. Does she still get citizenship? Lol
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.
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 :)
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.
What has this thread become
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.
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.
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.
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. :)
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 :/
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.
Already happened in 2010.
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.
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 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.
"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).
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.
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.
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.