The Significant Handshake - France on Citizenship

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

5 hours ago, dmc515 said:

Really?  Fairy tales?  I think someone standing up for their rights deserves something more that that.

We don’t have rights. There is no such things. They’re just lies we tell ourselves to feel better about our flawed world.

[Jo498]

I think Alarich made the salient point. citizenship in a particular nation is obviously not a basic human right. Furthermore, it is in no way obvious how a conflict between fundamental principles of a state and basic human rights or different human rights is to be resolved. E.g. in Europe there have been discussions whether the freedom of religion should prevail against animal protection (the case of jewish and muslim rules of slaughter) and against the right to an intact body (circumcision of male infants). I don't think there are obviously correct answers to what is more important.

Same here, a handshake seems a trivial thing. But why should a state who as others have explained has made laicité a strong principle grant citizenship to someone who puts their religion in such trivial things above the customs of that state? Should this person also have the right to become not only a citizen but a civil servant in such a state? I think most would see a problem in the latter case.

[Fragile Bird]

There is a certain amount of irony about the opposition of people living in a country that for 18 years has made citizenship extremely difficult to get and has now reached the point where they get around the assimilation problem by simply barring not only immigrants but visitors and workers from certain countries. But the people here would be able to protest it!

[IheartIheartTesla]

53 minutes ago, Jo498 said:

Same here, a handshake seems a trivial thing. But why should a state who as others have explained has made laicité a strong principle grant citizenship to someone who puts their religion in such trivial things above the customs of that state? Should this person also have the right to become not only a citizen but a civil servant in such a state? I think most would see a problem in the latter case.

I think that's because it is a trivial thing. Person in question already passed whatever was required of her to become a citizen.

Unless of course the rules stated - must shake hands of official at sign in ceremony to legally become a citizen, in which case I stand corrected. Although I suspect not, as such an open and shut case would not require a court hearing.

[IheartIheartTesla]

11 hours ago, Errant Bard said:

With all due respect, I think you and Yukle are consciously or unconsciously mischaracterising this decision: nobody is required to shake hands. What was considered by the Prime Minister then the Conseil d'État what the motivation behind that woman's decision to not shake hands; in that case it was the woman's belief that men and women were not equal.

So no 'what if' carpal tunnel, invalidity, or whatever.

Not to say that the decision cannot be criticised, but this has little to do with shaking or not shaking.

If such a fundamental concept (equality of men and women) is at the core of what being a French citizen is, then they should ask the damn question during the interview process (IMHO).

I guess the reason I am so annoyed at this decision is two-fold (and I speak as an immigrant myself to the US): First, assimilation in France is sort of a double-edged sword; in my understanding there is this perception (which we can debate) that someone like myself wouldn't be considered truly French if I were to immigrate to France, this would not be true in the US for example. So it is somewhat ironic that requirements for French citizenship require assimilation as a criterion, French society itself is hardly a beacon in this regard (again, in my opinion and I'm happy to be proved wrong). The second reason is more historic, and probably will take too much time to write out here.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

32 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

I think that's because it is a trivial thing. Person in question already passed whatever was required of her to become a citizen.

The fact that she refused to do a trivial thing is why it’s problematic. If she refused a mere handshake, what else would she refuse? I do find the response to be heavy handed, but I short of get why it occurred.  

[Jo498]

Why is the requirement of assimilation as a criterion ironic?

Is it so hard to see the many differences in history (ethnically homogeneous vs. nation of immigrants etc.), traditions, customs and some laws (including the difference between common law in the US and Civil Law in continental Europe) between the US and (here) France that show that there is a real conflict here? One does not have to agree with the decision or with the stance of most French people and some French posters here but one should at least acknowledge that they have a valid position that is founded on long-standing principles of France.

Not to bash the US but as an example: There used to be a strong anti-catholic bias in the US until the mid 20th century based on the claim that a catholic's first loyalty would be to his church and the pope, not to his nation. This seems exaggerated and unfair and was often combined with strange conspiracy theories about popish influence everywhere. But at the core it points to a conflict that is possible and while I am not familiar with doctrine, I guess a devout catholic *should* in fact be more loyal to the pope than to the nation (dominated by WASP politicians at the time).

[DMC]

5 hours ago, Rippounet said:

The US equivalent to this story would be the very opposite: a federal court upholding the woman's right to refuse physical contact in a formal setting. 

The problem here is that you're projecting an American definition of human rights on another country, and seem to deeply believe that it is the one and only definition. You're not even *trying* to understand that a different people had a different perspective here, you simply assume that your definition has to be correct. And you whine about anti-americanism to boot... ? Do you not see the irony ? 

8 hours ago, Alarich II said:

Yeah, but this isn't the US and nobody denies her right to refuse a handshake. Nobody. All the French court did say is that if you refuse the handshake on religious grounds, you cannot become a citizen. This doesn't mean she's not free to exercise her religion, it does not mean she has to leave the country or cannot enter the country. It simply means that she has to stick with her Algerian passport. Being a French citizen is not a human right.

I understand that for Americans the free exercise of religion is very important, because - again - history and culture matter.

But we are debating a French issue and to understand it, you have to understand the roots and the importance of French secularism.

Well, no, obviously the US equivalent to this story would be a US court denying her citizenship because she refused physical contact.  I'm not projecting "America's" definition of human rights on another country.  I'm projecting the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which, btw, was signed in Paris.  Article 18, to be specific: 

Quote

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

You guys can split hairs all you want that they're just denying citizenship, not her right to do so, but discrimination by any other word is still discrimination.

[Hereward]

So, if I were to express disdain for the US constitution and have membership of a communist party, the US would let me become a citizen on the basis of the right to free speech?

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Hereward said:

So, if I were to express disdain for the US constitution and have membership of a communist party, the US would let become a citizen on the basis of the right to free speech?

How is observing a religious practice expressing disdain for the sovereign?  (Let alone how does it equate to being a communist, which introduces a whole host of problems).  In general, the US has defended religious practices, even to the extent of animal sacrifice.  The limits are, apparently, drawn when you're high on peyote during work.

[Hereward]

Just now, dmc515 said:

How is observing a religious practice expressing disdain for the sovereign?  (Let alone how does it equate to being a communist, which introduces a whole host of problems).  In general, the US has defended religious practices, even to the extent of animal sacrifice.  The limits are, apparently, drawn when you're high on peyote during work.

Because the French have a longstanding and constitutional opposition to religious practice that refuses to recognise the state?

[DMC]

4 minutes ago, Hereward said:

Because the French have a longstanding and constitutional opposition to religious practice that refuses to recognise the state?

I don't know much about the current French constitution, which is younger than my parents, but I do understand its preamble recalls the Declaration of the Right of the Man and of the Citizen.  Article 10 of that states:

Quote

No one may be disturbed for his opinions, even religious ones, provided that their manifestation does not trouble the public order established by the law.

Does not shaking hands "trouble the public order"?

[Jo498]

If I decide to rejuvenate the religion of Moloch or of the ancient Aztecs and want to have human sacrifices at full moon, this freedom will not be granted to me in most countries. In this case there is a fairly obvious overruling of that freedom: the right of potential sacrifices trumps my freedom of religion.

If in Germany I decide to homeschool my children for religious (or whatever, just to stay with freedom of religion as the right in question) reasons, my children could be forced to go to a school or even be taken from my custody. [This is not always enforced and seems to depend on local authorities but according to law school is obligatory.] The comparably trivial obligation to attend a school until the age of 16 or so overrules the freedom of being spared (what I see as) modernist atheist propaganda and rather teach my children young earth creationism or the cult of Moloch or whatever. Now this is already a case where for me it is not at all obvious if this is too severe a restriction of freedom or justified by the public interest to have a somewhat homogeneously educated populace and also the public duty to protect children to some extent from religious nutcase parents. I am personally rather uncertain about such a case.

Now in the French case the conflict is not so obvious because the handshaking is such a trivial thing. But it does not seem different in principle from the human sacrifice or the obligatory public schooling. The state demands of its citizens certain "proofs of allegiance" and if one puts one's religion above that, one cannot become a citizen.

[Erik of Hazelfield]

I think if this case had been decided the other way, it would have strengthened xenophobic sentiment in France. This is precisely the kind of thing that not only the alt-right movement but also regular people like to fret about. “Society is obsessed about being politically correct” and so on. 

What I’m saying is you need to pick your battles, and I just can’t find it in me to defend someone who deliberately makes the point that men and women are unequal and shouldn’t shake hands. Is this really a fight we want to win? Lots of people are criticising what they perceive as cultural relativism and I can’t even say they’d be wrong in this case. This isn’t racism. You could possibly read into it some amount of cultural chauvinism, but I’m not sure that’s enough to make the decision wrong either morally or legally.

[Hereward]

19 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

I don't know much about the current French constitution, which is younger than my parents, but I do understand its preamble recalls the Declaration of the Right of the Man and of the Citizen.  Article 10 of that states:

Does not shaking hands "trouble the public order"?

Let me be clear, I am not supporting this decision, and it certainly wouldn’t fly in the UK. I am just saying that the American propensity to say that universal rights and freedoms, and the lack thereof, are what they say they are, is... troubling.

PS to say that the French constitution is only as old as your parents is misleading. It’s akin to saying that the US constitution is only as old as the last amendment. There is a clear thread running through French constitutions since the 18tg century, particularly on religion.

[DMC]

5 minutes ago, Hereward said:

Let me be clear, I am not supporting this decision, and it certainly wouldn’t fly in the UK. I am just saying that the American propensity to say that universal rights and freedoms, and the lack thereof, are what they say they are, is... troubling.

And allow me to be clear - I'm not using "America's" version of universal rights.  One was a French document and the other was (again) signed by 48 countries in Paris.  My "American propensity" is noting the general hypocrisy of this board which tends to decry and bemoan any notion of injustice on behalf of the US, but when it comes to other countries' own hypocrisy on upholding basic rights, tends to look the other way.  Or worse yet excuse it using standards that are patently anathema to the general criticisms of the US.  I am not referring to any specific poster.

[Hereward]

4 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

And allow me to be clear - I'm not using "America's" version of universal rights.  One was a French document and the other was (again) signed by 48 countries in Paris.  My "American propensity" is noting the general hypocrisy of this board which tends to decry and bemoan any notion of injustice on behalf of the US, but when it comes to other countries' own hypocrisy on upholding basic rights, tends to look the other way.  Or worse yet excuse it using standards that are patently anathema to the general criticisms of the US.  I am not referring to any specific poster.

OK, leaving aside the UN declaration, and its talk of the right to healthcare etc, let me ask this. Are Trump’s actions and expressed desires, which are so criticised, in keeping with the expressed virtues and spirit of the constitution, and is this French decision in keeping with their constitutional framework and its desires, regardless of the particular religion in question?

[DMC]

8 minutes ago, Hereward said:

Are Trump’s actions and expressed desires, which are so criticised, in keeping with the expressed virtues and spirit of the constitution

Obviously no, that's not the point.

9 minutes ago, Hereward said:

and is this French decision in keeping with their constitutional framework and its desires, regardless of the particular religion in question?

Like I said, I don't know much about the French constitution.  Show me where, and how, this violates it.  In general - regardless of any country's codified or common law - I think religious practices should be respected to a point.  There is certainly a line, and exactly where that line is can indeed sometimes be murky.  But this is not one of those cases.  It's a fucking handshake.

[Ormond]

1 hour ago, Hereward said:

So, if I were to express disdain for the US constitution and have membership of a communist party, the US would let me become a citizen on the basis of the right to free speech?

Here is the oath that people take when they are naturalized as United States citizens:

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."

There are some things in that I don't like. But although one certainly can't express "disdain for the US constitution" and take that oath, I don't see why "membership in a communist party" would prohibit one from taking it. 

[Errant Bard]

5 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

We don’t have rights. There is no such things. They’re just lies we tell ourselves to feel better about our flawed world.

We have rights, they are granted by the society of our peers. Same for the concept of flaw, they also are a social construct.

2 hours ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

If such a fundamental concept (equality of men and women) is at the core of what being a French citizen is, then they should ask the damn question during the interview process (IMHO).

I guess the reason I am so annoyed at this decision is two-fold (and I speak as an immigrant myself to the US): First, assimilation in France is sort of a double-edged sword; in my understanding there is this perception (which we can debate) that someone like myself wouldn't be considered truly French if I were to immigrate to France, this would not be true in the US for example. So it is somewhat ironic that requirements for French citizenship require assimilation as a criterion, French society itself is hardly a beacon in this regard (again, in my opinion and I'm happy to be proved wrong). The second reason is more historic, and probably will take too much time to write out here.

Indeed French society has sucked at assimilation for at least half a century now. But there is no irony in trying and mostly failing to reach your aspiration.

They probably ask such a question but in this case an over zealous, probably xenophobic (or at least in lockstep with the hard line of the gov and/or pressured by the global atmosphere against non-laics that settled after the terror strikes) considered that actions speak louder than words, PM agreed, State Council upheld, and here we are.

 

1 hour ago, dmc515 said:

Well, no, obviously the US equivalent to this story would be a US court denying her citizenship because she refused physical contact.  I'm not projecting "America's" definition of human rights on another country.  I'm projecting the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which, btw, was signed in Paris.  Article 18, to be specific: 

You guys can split hairs all you want that they're just denying citizenship, not her right to do so, but discrimination by any other word is still discrimination.

The act of deciding if one should or should not be a citizen is the definition of discrimination: yes, they are not indiscriminate in giving citizenship.

I understand that it may seem to be unfair against muslims in particular, and for some of those involved it may be so, but the final decision itself is actually grounded in France's "laïcité", which says religions have to take a backseat out of view -a concept at odds with the concept of multiculturalism as practiced in the UK or US (which, given stuff like black lives matter doesn't seem to be the panacea either, I might say) . This anti-multiculturalism has opponents, but it holds-.

 

This said, French citizenship is not a basic human right,so even if the refusal was grossly arbitrary and unjustified, the administration would not violate human rights, unlike what it does in the handling of refugees and those who try to help.