Then they would have been "too Buddhist" or "too Christian." But also that wouldn't have happened.
-
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
Then they would have been "too Buddhist" or "too Christian." But also that wouldn't have happened.
For the third time, America already does give citizenship to people who don't swear oaths because of their religion
Yes It would have happened. It would have happened if the person was atheist and refused to shake the hand of the official because of its gender as well.
Exception :
8 C.F.R. 337.1 provides that the phrase "so help me God" is optional and that the words 'on oath' can be substituted with 'and solemnly affirm'.
8 U.S.C. § 1448 provides that if the prospective citizen is unable or unwilling to promise to bear arms or perform noncombatant military service because of "religious training and belief", they may request to leave out those clauses. The law specifies:
The term "religious training and belief" as used in this section shall mean an individual's belief in a relation to a Supreme Being involving duties superior to those arising from any human relation, but does not include essentially political, sociological, or philosophical views or a merely personal moral code.[3]
That is not the whole oath.8 U.S.C. § 1448 provides that if the prospective citizen is unable or unwilling to promise to bear arms or perform noncombatant military service because of "religious training and belief", they may request to leave out those clauses. The law specifies:
The term "religious training and belief" as used in this section shall mean an individual's belief in a relation to a Supreme Being involving duties superior to those arising from any human relation, but does not include essentially political, sociological, or philosophical views or a merely personal moral code.[3]
And half of people here will have some problem with that supporting American constitution,
the 4th amendment.
I'm pretty sure that even french have some exception, "not shaking hands" was probably not part of that list.
She decided to make a stand on a issue. So did the french republic.
Last edited:
Yep. I also feel confident that if it was an Algerian man who refused to shake the hand of a woman, people would be more outraged and less defensive.
Why am I not surprised to see people defend France's decision in this case are also the same people who will attack Iran's or Saudi Arabia's laws at any given chance? Our white saviors.
Considering SA & Iran have absolutely abhorrent laws, especially in regards to LGTB rights, you really need to step back before getting on that high horse.
What an incredibly dumb thing to do on the woman's part.
You get a chance to leave your third world country citizenship behind for a first world country one and you decide to shit on that chance that many Algerians men and women would kill for because of a goddamn handshake?
You get a chance to leave your third world country citizenship behind for a first world country one and you decide to shit on that chance that many Algerians men and women would kill for because of a goddamn handshake?
SA´s and Iran´s laws are primitive, oppressive and inhuman, and deserve the scorn that they get. The woman has no respect for the culture that of the host country has, and she does not deserve citizenship. Also this is not a racial issue at all, but apparently some people see racial issue everywhere.
Yeah the double standards on display is amazing. Not surprising since people seem to have a nauseating fantasy with uber secularism.
Is she culturally incompatible because she doesn't partake in norms like alcohol? Drinking is seen as a cultural norm in France yet is she not 'integrated' because she won't partake in that?
Where does it go? And how much does it actually harm you? How much does it actually harm you that a woman respectfully declines a handshake from you? There's 50,000 different ways of greeting someone, shakimg someone's hand isn't the be all, end all. It's clear the judge knew what they were doing.
It seems like you're fine as long as you, out of your "free will" decide to conform to every bit of our sense of normalcy in a homogenized manor, else we ostracize you and tell you to GTHO.
For a country that supposedly purports western liberal values it's ironic she is being punished for refusing to touch someone against her will. I would have thought that these same values would support a woman's right to bodily autonomy and let her decide when, how, and who she has physical contact with.
Not that it's surprising considering France has a dark history with Muslim countries,
stripping other people around the world from their faith, culture and traditions (you only have to look at the horrific things they did in North Africa to see this, & the way they treat ethnic minorities nowadays). God forbid a married women not wanting to shake a mans hand.
Oops perhaps I shouldn't say god before that annoys some people too.
A lot of these comments are like saying orthodox Jews should be sent back to Israel because they refuse to touch the hand of the opposite gender. Wonder how the tone would shift then.
Though this news shouldn't be surprising to anyone if they just had a shred of knowledge regarding the history between Muslim ethnic minorities & France.
Is she culturally incompatible because she doesn't partake in norms like alcohol? Drinking is seen as a cultural norm in France yet is she not 'integrated' because she won't partake in that?
Where does it go? And how much does it actually harm you? How much does it actually harm you that a woman respectfully declines a handshake from you? There's 50,000 different ways of greeting someone, shakimg someone's hand isn't the be all, end all. It's clear the judge knew what they were doing.
It seems like you're fine as long as you, out of your "free will" decide to conform to every bit of our sense of normalcy in a homogenized manor, else we ostracize you and tell you to GTHO.
For a country that supposedly purports western liberal values it's ironic she is being punished for refusing to touch someone against her will. I would have thought that these same values would support a woman's right to bodily autonomy and let her decide when, how, and who she has physical contact with.
Not that it's surprising considering France has a dark history with Muslim countries,
stripping other people around the world from their faith, culture and traditions (you only have to look at the horrific things they did in North Africa to see this, & the way they treat ethnic minorities nowadays). God forbid a married women not wanting to shake a mans hand.
Oops perhaps I shouldn't say god before that annoys some people too.
A lot of these comments are like saying orthodox Jews should be sent back to Israel because they refuse to touch the hand of the opposite gender. Wonder how the tone would shift then.
Though this news shouldn't be surprising to anyone if they just had a shred of knowledge regarding the history between Muslim ethnic minorities & France.
Last edited:
Sexism is wrong, absolutely, and there's no excuse for it. That's all true, but it's also true that two wrongs don't make a right, and that doesn't make denying citizenship the right way to address the situation. Especially when it does nothing to actually challenge or alter the behavior in any way, and she's still being allowed to stay in France as a resident to my understanding, just as a non-citizen resident. So what does denying her citizenship actually change? What's it accomplish at all, and how's it actually address the situation or problem at all, if sexism is the problem here?
That's what I mean by two wrongs don't make a right. That of course sexism is wrong, but denying citizenship while nonetheless allowing her to remain in France doesn't actually do anything to address that problem at all. So that being the case,,why is that the answer? Why is that the solution? It's not. It's just another wrong, it's using the wrong tool in the toolbox and they should choose a more appropriate tool instead, if that's their aim. That's all I'm getting at anyway. That it's definitely something that needs attention, certainly, but this isn't the way to do it since it doesn't actually do anything to address the supposed problem or change it any way whatsoever, and that's something that I could only imagine that those who agree that sexism is a huge issue that needs to be addressed would agree on. That the solution or punishment or whatever needs to be something that in some way at least has a chance of somewhat getting to the root of it and addressing it in at least a slight fashion at the very least, and do something about it, right?
That's all I'm getting at--that this particular solution does nothing whatsoever to address that or change anything about the apparent problem at all, and thus, as things stand, it's just a case of two wrongs not making a right as far as I can see it, acting like they did something without actually really doing anything at all, or at least that's how I feel about the situation at the very least.
Yeah! How lucky she is to having the 'privilege' to move to such an enlightened country, from an absolutely 'crap hole' of a third world country, that is like that because it has campaigns to ethnically whitewash, had its scores of population massacred, exploited, pillaged, women sexually abused, by said enlightened country, that is to 'die for'.
Yeah... I suggest you read France's history with Algeria & North Africa — perhaps then you wouldn't say such naive statements (that frankly, reek of western 'supmeracy', even if you don't mean it), in how much Muslim ethnic minorities have been disadvantaged at the hands of the French government, in both the past and present.
Last edited:
Is that supposed to be a bad thing? Both these countries have abhorrent laws in many matters, despite especcially the prior having a huge young population striving for modernization but being oppressed by said laws.
Oh, I'm not arguing that SA and Iran have horrible laws, but I believe it's up to Arabs and Persians to modernize their society at the pace they want and middle class white boys whose ancestors are directly responsible for the state of the Middle East and Africa that we know today should have no say in it whatsoever.
Algeria isn't exactly a starving country anyway. It's ranked 55th in worldwide GWP ranking, basically at the level of many EU countries (Romania, Czech Republic, Hungary,...)
Not that I'm excusing anything (she definitely should have shaken that hand, and even if I'm not sure I agree with the decision from the authorities they do have a point), but it isn't a life or death situation.
It's not, actually. Not all French people drink alcohol, and most people wouldn't mind if you'd tell them you don't, whatever the reason. Now social interaction is obviously an important part of everybody's life. It's definitely not the same situation.
How on earth does criticizing abhorrent laws translate into "having a say" on the pace they modernize? Last I checked these "middle class white boys" (ignoring that a lot more than white boys condemn their horrific laws) aren't sitting on the SA throne, or replacing the Ayatollah any time soon. Just seems like a pointless post to make in all honesty.
Also people forget that she was not denied to stay in France, she was denied France citizenship. She can live in France as long she please.
EDIT.
Until she decided to leave or she lose the requirements for permanent resident status, witch is very unlikely given her family status.
Why do people still make such silly comments?
This isn't about Islam's treatment of women, you're completely missng the point; a muslim man or Orthodox Jew would do the same thing. Why can't these purported liberal values protect people having the right who touches their body? The whole point (see my post above), is the double standards on display & a the convenient time to dictate what 'cultural normalcy' is.
Or read the thread and you'll find out people in this thread who are immigrants or descended from immigrants, who are Muslim, and find her grand standing ridiculous. It's frankly insulting and disgusting that thinking she was in the wrong is painted as xenophobia or whitesplaining.
If i'm going to a country and they require a photo for the VISA application I can't really argue that I'm against taking a picture of myself (no matter what the reason is), they just won't care and not let me in. I'm not being discriminated against, even if "taking pictures" was a forbidden part of my culture/religion/beliefs.
I'm just saying, that some people here will spew islamophobic rhetoric at any given chance be it handshake, hijabs or laws of SA and Iran and often it comes off as "white man's burden".
I'm not talking about this separate case. I don't think anyone would argue that refusing a handshake is a silly stance that can be interpreted as a very Salafi thing to do. I'm talking about an attitude that some users here have towards Islam and Muslims.
Last edited:
There is nothing about drinking. Plenty of non-drinking muslims have become french citizens just fine, with hand-shaking. You're trying to turn this into some sort of "They want to force us to eat pork!!!" boogeyman with no basis.
Is this how you engage in discussion? Implying everybody arguing in the opposite direction of yourself must be an islamophobe? And then, there is no "respectfully declining a handshake". Sexism is sexism and equality is equality, there is no "respectfully declining that". And then of course the judge must be an islamophobe as well, based on your non-existing evidence.
Which is again just complete bullshit. The only matter here was her not shaking the hand. You pretend as if she was forced to denounce Islam, eat pork and wash it down with vodka to become a citizen. Which is a complete fairytale, none of that happened. Denying a handshake is what happened.
This is just so disingenous. Aside from the "tolerance does not mean tolerating intolerance" part that has been brought up, show me a single decision showing that having to shake hands to receive a citizenships is an illegal human rights violation. The mental gymnasitics are extreme. By that logic having to go to the magistrate to get a passport is an infringement on the human right of free movement.
And of course finishing off with the self-victimization and an obligatory "But the Jews!!". France's bad history of colonialsm does not in any way mean they now have to make exceptions in 2018 for backwards religious-political actions such as this.
A lack of sexism isn't some holy grail ideal of the ultra-Western ideal. Jesus fucking christ. Being able to function with people of the opposite gender isn't the same thing as drinking. "Your religious beliefs are too fucking sexist" would get even more backlash, so they said "You'd fail to integrate".
And it does, indeed, harm me. I'm Turkish. Thousands if not millions of people who think like this woman have the right to vote in my country. As a result, we have had a dictator in power for 15 years who's undermined every secular institution, turned innumerable schools into paragons of Islamic teaching, removed evolution from the high school curriculum.
His followers are ecstatic- people who would condone a woman being unable to shake hands with a man.
I'd do everything to not let them vote.
This woman wasn't denied citizenship for refusing a handshake. This woman was denied citizenship because she's so extreme in her sexist beliefs that she cannot shake a man's hand.
You do have a point that this won't change this woman's conduct. However, it isn't France's responsibility to reach a compromise with a citizenship applicant. I do find it a bit silly that she's allowed to remain in the country, but I think that's more of a legal and logistical trapping than a matter of values (her staying isn't France condoning these values in its society, in other words).
France doesn't have to provide an alternative way to fix this problem to be able to refuse granting citizenship. But they absolutely should
Hahaha.
So much this. Not giving a hand shake to an unrelated man has its sources in such a vile view on women it's amazing, once you think about it.
I find it overly rude, and disrespectful.
This is a lazy right-wing talking point. The faux concern here is dumb. Like when people call out Marine Le Pen for the garbage that comes out of her mouth, her defense force will say 'the left' is being hypocritical for not respecting women. Give me a break. If Kim Davis the Kentucky county clerk refused to shake hands of a same sex couple after issuing a marriage license, would you whine about protecting her "right to bodily autonomy"?
And yeah people have different ways of socially interacting with one another. It boggles me people claim sexism when even basic social norms show how men & women treat one another differently even in trivial social interactions.
If she raised her hand to her chest or waved, would that be good enough for you?
Again, the reason why I'm telling people to put it into context is because france's history with ethnic minorities & Muslims is horrific, & even the institutional deprivation that currently exists today in those communities.
Last edited:
Im going to clarify your last point because I feel you've misunderstood or I wasn't clear (especially wrt to the Orthodox Jew argument, as that's not my point at all, as I'm referencing an incident that occurred a few days now ago, which I'll post later).
But I will say this; my argument you're referring to on then above paragraph was written with emotion & you're right, that's not how I should talk.
It's just frustrating because of how it has affected personally wrt these things, but that's not excuse to write things with emotion.
I'm perhaps not getting my point across clear (idk how people taking it as a far right argument for example), so I'm going to cool down and reply later.
Last edited:
Secularism (or you could say its practice) varies even from country to country. France tends to be on the more extreme side imo, whereas countries like UK/US do its better (esp UK).
I don't understand how you're drawing the conclusion of now wanting to shake someones hand now means she's not going to be able to function.
Last edited:
Secularism is "extreme"
Because people misunderstand tolerance and liberalism with tolerating extreme religious beliefs.
Because people misunderstand tolerance and liberalism with tolerating extreme religious beliefs.
Being unable to handshake in a professional capacity solely due to religious reasons constitutes being unable to function in my eyes.
This isn't an exclusively Islamic problem.
Negiah in the Orthodox Jewish community is also an issue, but we don't tend to hear much about that.
This nonsense:
Echos a common religious conservative defense for holding shitty beliefs under the cover of a faux concern about the rights women and pointing out "liberal hypocrisy."
It's quite lame.
If you're that extreme about your religion to the point you don't want to give a handshake so that you can live somewhere you want(does she really?), then it's not out of the question that a person like that is going to discriminate against a gay or lesbian person in the future.
France is right in saying she's not assimilated.
France is right in saying she's not assimilated.
I somewhat agree with the wider point, but conversely, posters going to bat for people like her in the name of tolerance are reducing Muslims and people from parts of the "Muslim world" (*) to ultra-conservatives. I think both attitudes are toxic in that they effectively assign a very conservative identity to huge groups of people. The first victims of these caricatural world views are moderates, people looking for a better life, minding their own business.
(* I'm using "Muslim world" in the sense that this covers a large number of countries with their own history, customs, and actual religion - but functionally, this covers places as different as like 5 countries from North Africa, the Gulf countries, Iran or Turkey)
Given that the muslim population in France is 8x the size of the jewish community, and the prior is growing while jews have been increasingly emigrating (the jewish population decreased by 10% since 2000), that does not seem very surprising. Needless to say the same citizenship restriction would apply, unless you have evidence of the contrary. Also ignoring that once again the "But Jews!" argument is brought up as defense. (How does orthodox Jews also having some backwards religious dogmas interact with the topic of the thread? Other than "But the jews get away with it!!", which unless solid evidence to the contrary is provided, they don't)
It's also stupid claiming islamophobia if several dozens muslims received their citizenship at the same ceremony without problems.
.
.
You seem on edge.
I simply made a reference to an issue that surrounds orthodox communities of all stripes.
US-centric forum; and a welcome outlet to bash the cocky anti-religious/non-religious for once, instead of the other way around
the woman somehow managed to red flag herself and prompted the officials to do a 180 at the last possible moment, over a handshake
I don't dispute that. If you look at stories over the last few years, the majority involve Muslims.
The only reason I know about Negiah is that I have friends who are from Orthodox families and the reason I brought it up was that it's something that's not really talked about.
That's a great point. A lot of people think that Muslim World is a monolithic entity that lives and behaves in a certain way completely forgetting that Muslim World goes from Bosnia and Albania to northern Nigeria and parts of Tanzania and everywhere local Islam is influenced by local culture and traditions. I actually live in a place where fellow Muslims use derogatory terms to describe hijabis (Chupa Chups) because they think that these women disrespect our ethnic culture.
But hey, at least we're one Ummah in the eyes of some dudes in the West. (too bad that's the only place where we're actually one)
Probably shouldn't have been reacted as emotionally as I did, just a reminder to not discuss anything religion-related on ERA.
Last edited:
- Status