Passport refused over a handshake
Discussion
Disastrous said:
Can’t speak for other ‘libtards’ but personally, I agree with the decision.
What I find distasteful is the obvious and predictable glee that some on here find in something bad happening to a Muslim.
Right call, but don’t revel in it!
I view our protagonist with the same contempt as someone who moves into a small village and tries to campaign to get the church bells which have always rung since medieval times silenced. What I find distasteful is the obvious and predictable glee that some on here find in something bad happening to a Muslim.
Right call, but don’t revel in it!
Or buys a house next to a racetrack and tries to close it down because it is noisy.
T
Breadvan72 said:
I am one of the other two or three "libtards" here, and I also agree with the decision, but also deplore the gloating of the PH righty-hatey massive.
I wouldn't put you in the 'libatard' group. Liberal, yes. However, you do (most of the time) back up your thoughts with logic and common sense.
Disastrous said:
Can’t speak for other ‘libtards’ but personally, I agree with the decision.
What I find distasteful is the obvious and predictable glee that some on here find in something bad happening to a Muslim.
Right call, but don’t revel in it!
Something bad happening to a muslim? What I find distasteful is the obvious and predictable glee that some on here find in something bad happening to a Muslim.
Right call, but don’t revel in it!
All I see that's happened is, the French are not tolerating the intolerant anymore.
liam1986 said:
Something bad happening to a muslim?
All I see that's happened is, the French are not tolerating the intolerant anymore.
I don't see this as a move against intolerance. It seems to be purely a matter of culture. The woman's is so different, in the eyes of the court, that she could not integrate. She would, it appears, have had >8 years to crack it but has decided to continue in the customs she was familiar with. All I see that's happened is, the French are not tolerating the intolerant anymore.
It would be, I assume, similar to wearing socks and sandals rather than flip flops in Australia.
Whether it is reasonable to refuse French nationality to the wife of a French man on these grounds is another matter.
The problem with "when in Rome" taken straight is that it would require every woman living in Somalia to have FGM. Cultural relativism can be a bad thing. I think that we should not be shy about asserting that some cultures (note I said cultures, not ethnicities) are objectively superior to others. The culture that has produced Western liberal democracy and which has (belatedly) recognised gender equality is superior to cultures that subordinate women. Cultures are, of course, both learnable and changeable.
Breadvan72 said:
The problem with "when in Rome" taken straight is that it would require every woman living in Somalia to have FGM. Cultural relativism can be a bad thing. I think that we should not be shy about asserting that some cultures (note I said cultures, not ethnicities) are objectively superior to others. The culture that has produced Western liberal democracy and which has (belatedly) recognised gender equality is superior to cultures that subordinate women. Cultures are, of course, both learnable and changeable.
+1Breadvan72 said:
The problem with "when in Rome" taken straight is that it would require every woman living in Somalia to have FGM. Cultural relativism can be a bad thing. I think that we should not be shy about asserting that some cultures (note I said cultures, not ethnicities) are objectively superior to others. The culture that has produced Western liberal democracy and which has (belatedly) recognised gender equality is superior to cultures that subordinate women. Cultures are, of course, both learnable and changeable.
excellent post. 
Breadvan72 said:
The problem with "when in Rome" taken straight is that it would require every woman living in Somalia to have FGM. Cultural relativism can be a bad thing. I think that we should not be shy about asserting that some cultures (note I said cultures, not ethnicities) are objectively superior to others. The culture that has produced Western liberal democracy and which has (belatedly) recognised gender equality is superior to cultures that subordinate women. Cultures are, of course, both learnable and changeable.
What defines the culture though ? There will be countries whose culture are defined by their ethnicity or religion.Bringing large numbers of those from the “inferior” cultures and making them mix with the superior western will cause all manner of problems.
Fgm in Somalia isn’t far off 100%
'When in Rome' was not originally meant as a restriction, just the reverse in fact. It is similar in meaning to 'what happens in Vegas'. In other words it is suggesting that when you are away from home you can throw off restrictions. That's how I understood it as a kid. The meaning changed all of a sudden. Not sure why.
I have four kids, three of whom have married those of ethnic origin other than English. One wears ethnic dress (not national costume, but evening dress in her culture and social level) on occasion but is very English in most of her ways. Their children are brought up speaking both languages of their parents and are non the less UK citizens. I'm certain I would be a wee bit miffed if she was refused a British passport or right to live here just because she still has mannerisms that are particular to her nationality.
What if a Jew wore a skull cap? I used to work with a chap, Paddy, who would wear a skull cap on Jewish high days, but he was by no means religious.
France used to be welcoming to those whose countries they plundered and ruled. In my youth you could always tell a group of French schoolchildren because they were racially mixed, to a degree not common where I lived. I mixed with Jews and Poles, but they were not easily identified as such. But then France seemed to change.
I have four kids, three of whom have married those of ethnic origin other than English. One wears ethnic dress (not national costume, but evening dress in her culture and social level) on occasion but is very English in most of her ways. Their children are brought up speaking both languages of their parents and are non the less UK citizens. I'm certain I would be a wee bit miffed if she was refused a British passport or right to live here just because she still has mannerisms that are particular to her nationality.
What if a Jew wore a skull cap? I used to work with a chap, Paddy, who would wear a skull cap on Jewish high days, but he was by no means religious.
France used to be welcoming to those whose countries they plundered and ruled. In my youth you could always tell a group of French schoolchildren because they were racially mixed, to a degree not common where I lived. I mixed with Jews and Poles, but they were not easily identified as such. But then France seemed to change.
Derek Smith said:
'When in Rome' was not originally meant as a restriction, just the reverse in fact. It is similar in meaning to 'what happens in Vegas'. In other words it is suggesting that when you are away from home you can throw off restrictions. That's how I understood it as a kid. The meaning changed all of a sudden. Not sure why.
I have four kids, three of whom have married those of ethnic origin other than English. One wears ethnic dress (not national costume, but evening dress in her culture and social level) on occasion but is very English in most of her ways. Their children are brought up speaking both languages of their parents and are non the less UK citizens. I'm certain I would be a wee bit miffed if she was refused a British passport or right to live here just because she still has mannerisms that are particular to her nationality.
What if a Jew wore a skull cap? I used to work with a chap, Paddy, who would wear a skull cap on Jewish high days, but he was by no means religious.
France used to be welcoming to those whose countries they plundered and ruled. In my youth you could always tell a group of French schoolchildren because they were racially mixed, to a degree not common where I lived. I mixed with Jews and Poles, but they were not easily identified as such. But then France seemed to change.
Just checking, if your above mentioned daughter in law refused to shake hands in order to get British citizenship would that be OK ?I have four kids, three of whom have married those of ethnic origin other than English. One wears ethnic dress (not national costume, but evening dress in her culture and social level) on occasion but is very English in most of her ways. Their children are brought up speaking both languages of their parents and are non the less UK citizens. I'm certain I would be a wee bit miffed if she was refused a British passport or right to live here just because she still has mannerisms that are particular to her nationality.
What if a Jew wore a skull cap? I used to work with a chap, Paddy, who would wear a skull cap on Jewish high days, but he was by no means religious.
France used to be welcoming to those whose countries they plundered and ruled. In my youth you could always tell a group of French schoolchildren because they were racially mixed, to a degree not common where I lived. I mixed with Jews and Poles, but they were not easily identified as such. But then France seemed to change.
Derek Smith said:
'When in Rome' was not originally meant as a restriction, just the reverse in fact. It is similar in meaning to 'what happens in Vegas'. In other words it is suggesting that when you are away from home you can throw off restrictions. That's how I understood it as a kid. The meaning changed all of a sudden. Not sure why.
original quote said:
When I go to Rome, I fast on Saturday, but here [Milan] I do not. Do you also follow the custom of whatever church you attend, if you do not want to give or receive scandal.
https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/when-in-rome-do-as-the-romans-do.htmlBreadvan72 said:
I am one of the other two or three "libtards" here, and I also agree with the decision, but also deplore the gloating of the PH righty-hatey massive.
Well put.British friend of mine served 7 years in the French army and has subsequently lived in France with wife and kids for over a decade. He applied for citizenship but was refused on the grounds that he earned no income in France (he works in N Africa for a Spanish company paid out of Holland). He is though, of course, resident for tax purposes... So the French can be quite picky, although as he's from Sunderland originally, who can blame them
I've worked out in Algeria for many years and although of course there are sensibilities when it comes to gender, all the women I've professionally known for a while are greeted with a reciprocated cheek kiss; but obviously these are women who generally are quite liberal and independent compared to some of there peers.
Edited by andy_s on Saturday 21st April 21:12
Countdown said:
Frank7 said:
I had a great-uncle who was slightly wounded by a booby trap bomb during the Algerian conflict in the late fifties.
If he was still around, he’d have campaigned for this woman’s deportation, and my French family, and me, would have been right beside him.
Was your great-uncle one of those fighting to maintain French rule over Algeria?If he was still around, he’d have campaigned for this woman’s deportation, and my French family, and me, would have been right beside him.
In the 1950s, the battle cry, Algerie Française, (French Algeria, or more to the point, Algeria is French), was on a lot of French patriots lips.
If you were a citizen of La République in the 1950s, and a bunch of insurgents began to bomb buildings, and shoot French soldiers and policemen in the street, in a part of the world that you recognised as part of your country, perhaps you wouldn’t be reluctant to go and “do your bit.” either.
I don’t think the NI situation is comparable. AIUI the majority of the NI population want to remain a part of the UK. In a similar vein had Scotland voted to leave the UK I doubt it would have been right for Parliament to send English soldiers to Scotland in order to prevent them leaving the Union.
In the context of this thread I just found it odd how your Great Uncle would have considered it unacceptable for a woman to choose not to shake a mans hand, but perfectly acceptable for one Country to occupy another. I guess he was only following orders.
In the context of this thread I just found it odd how your Great Uncle would have considered it unacceptable for a woman to choose not to shake a mans hand, but perfectly acceptable for one Country to occupy another. I guess he was only following orders.
Edited by Countdown on Saturday 21st April 22:48
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff