The Significant Handshake - France on Citizenship

[Larry of the Lawn]

2 hours ago, Rippounet said:

With all due respect, this is not up for debate.

The woman specifically said she was refusing the handshake on religious grounds ; there's no "what ifs" here. Her religion clearly prevents her full assimilation, because physical contact between men and women is part of French culture. 

There are many things to be debated here, but her failure to assimilate is not one of them. 

The larger question is whether it's a good thing that a Western country suddenly decides immigrants need to fully conform to its traditions to be granted citizenship, or that conforming to certain traditions is mandatory.

But that's like questioning the relevance of citizenship tests and requirements to begin with. If a country may choose mandatory requirements to grant citizenship then a handshake may be a valid test indeed. 

I was originally pointing out that such a test actually does make sense in a French context, funnily enough. 

Wow so rad that a culture mandates male/female contact.  This is an unethical decision by the courts that puts bodily autonomy, public health, and personal preferences as lesser priorities than conforming to a bullshit tradition.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

It looks like it is coming from a Hadith not an explicit passage of the Koran:

http://www.justaskislam.com/69/shaking-hands-with-women/

As such is this something that can be bent?

[Fragile Bird]

11 minutes ago, Yukle said:

Citizenship is given due to birth, for the most part. People born in France are often born with disabilities. If that happens, their citizenship isn't revoked (thank goodness). The reason I brought it up is to say that there are people who are French citizens by birth who may end up in the same boat, which is not conforming to a particular norm. That means that it's not a single test of assimilation, and 100% of France doesn't follow that particular view.

There would be literally no cultural norm that absolutely every single citizen of any country would conform to, and expecting as such is a fantasy.

I assume this is meant to suggest "whataboutism" but, for one thing, this doesn't prove or disprove your point one way or another. 

I decided to look up what countries grant citizenship based on the mere fact you were born in the country, because I know many don't. The concept is called jus soli, latin for 'right of the soil'. The British spread the concept around the world. Pretty well all of North, Central and South America have it, as do Chad, Tanzania and Pakistan. No EU country has unrestricted jus soli, nor does Australia.

In France, if you are born there and at least one parent has French citizenship you have citizenship. That sets the record straight now, right?

If you are born in France with a disability and one of your parents is French, no, they don't take away your citizenship. Nobody in the world does. The issue is not conforming to a norm - the issue is who is going to bear the cost of looking after you. Not a test of assimilation either. 

Canada has long had restrictions on granting sick people citizenship. Basically we don't do it. There has been discussion under the current government about easing that restriction, but with an aging population and the fast-paced growth of health costs, people are generally opposed to picking up lifelong medical bills for immigrants who haven't spent decades contributing their share of expenses through taxes.

And there are many countries with very tough restrictions on who becomes a citizen. The five hardest countries in the world to get citizenship in are Austria, Germany, Japan, Switzerland and the USA. In Austria people who received permission to become permanent residents have to wait 15 to 30 years before they can apply for citizenship. Because of the terrorism in the early 2000s, the USA tightened up rules and made getting citizenship much harder than it previously had been.

In Switzerland, you can apply for citizenship after you've lived there for 10 years, but that doesn't mean you qualify. As in France, you have to prove you've been assimilated, and you are not a security threat. And the Swiss cantons are extremely independent and each has rules of their own. In some cantons your request for citizenship actually goes to a vote. The canton publishes a booklet with a picture of the person applying for citizenship and they have to write a pitch to the voters about why they should become citizens. People who have lived in the country for 25 years and run businesses have been turned down by voters.

And you think a handshake is a tough barrier.

[Errant Bard]

4 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

Wow so rad that a culture mandates male/female contact.  This is an unethical decision by the courts that puts bodily autonomy, public health, and personal preferences as lesser priorities than conforming to a bullshit tradition.

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.

 

Article in french just in case: http://www.lepoint.fr/societe/refus-de-serrer-la-main-rejet-de-naturalisation-pour-une-algerienne-19-04-2018-2211997_23.php

[DMC]

6 hours ago, Rippounet said:

With all due respect, this is not up for debate.

The woman specifically said she was refusing the handshake on religious grounds ; there's no "what ifs" here. Her religion clearly prevents her full assimilation, because physical contact between men and women is part of French culture. 

There are many things to be debated here, but her failure to assimilate is not one of them. 

Hm.  I very much wonder if failure to make "physical contact" between a man and women would be viewed as acceptable if the exact example was transposed to the US.  Further, I wonder if this happened in the US - especially under Trump - if there wouldn't be incredible outrage at even the notion the woman had to make a handshake.  The notion handshakes constitute assimilation, one way or another, is rather ludicrous - and would be rightly viewed as such is this happened in the US, Trump or otherwise.

7 hours ago, Rippounet said:

The larger question is whether it's a good thing that a Western country suddenly decides immigrants need to fully conform to its traditions to be granted citizenship, or that conforming to certain traditions is mandatory.

But that's like questioning the relevance of citizenship tests and requirements to begin with. If a country may choose mandatory requirements to grant citizenship then a handshake may be a valid test indeed. 

The first graph suggests english should be taught as the first and only language for American immigrants, which is of course a ridiculously stupid conservative perspective.  The second suggests the US can utilize a multitude of tests - reminiscent of Jim Crow tests - to ensure voting privilege is denied to emigres one way or another.  Again, I don't mean to single you out, but this example exposes how those in comfortable liberal democracies outside of the US can judge it heavily, but when it's confronted with similar issues it renegs on all such principles they're purporting to adhere to.

[Rippounet]

5 hours ago, Yukle said:

The point was to say that if she wasn't a Muslim, it might not have even occurred to the presiding officer to deny it. There's no doubt that her religion was a factor in his decision, possibly the only factor beyond her refusal itself.

And there's also the inherent flaw in the assumption that equality means conformity. What if you simply don't want to? Why do you even need another reason? It's ridiculous to assume that every French person wants physical contact with strangers. Most do, I assume, but all? That's not going to happen.

Exactly. 

The legal decision is 200 % valid but it nonetheless raises many troubling questions. 

For starters this will obviously be used against Muslims specifically. And it gives officials a power that not all will use. In other words it creates a test that will not be applied equally. 

And then there's the larger issue of what the requirements for French citizenship are and what it means for the country. 

[Rippounet]

6 hours ago, Martell Spy said:

I can agree with you that countries do have a right to make arbitrary decisions on entry and citizenship. Do you think it's a great thing though if they choose to do this? I mean, I recognize that the U.S. has the right to do this, but I find the various bullshit they put immigrants through to be pretty excessive. 

Historically speaking the US is far more welcoming than most other Western countries. 

France, specifically, isn't. For starters French-style secularism  (laïcité), which implies a strict separation of Church and State, is openly hostile to religion and religious people. It's linked to the revolution's anticlericalism.

Do I, as an individual, think it's a good thing that these principles may be enforced on immigrants? I'm afraid I do. It's one of these cases when a French leftist will not be liberal at all, and I, personally, will be a socialist and a republican instead. 

Still, in the present context I'm not blind to the message this specific case sends and to the terrible consequences it may have. The judges had little choice but it's a decision that will delight the far-right and that sets a dangerous precedent.

It says the country's historical principles are incompatible with some personal beliefs. At the risk of sowing uneeded division and strife. I'm not sure it's worth it. At least not in this context. 

[Rippounet]

5 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

With all due respect, it's up for debate and we are literally debating it.

Well you can "debate" whether the Earth is flat, but that doesn't mean there's any chance that it is. 

The failure of the woman to conform to French principles and traditions is glaring. The issue, as pretty much everyone has acknowledged, is whether demanding such conformity from immigrants is a good thing. 

In today's context I think it's preferable that Western institutions refrain from encouraging islamophobia. But I do support the enforcement of French republican principles. And for better or worse there is no international vote on such matters. 

[Rippounet]

1 hour ago, dmc515 said:

Hm.  I very much wonder if failure to make "physical contact" between a man and women would be viewed as acceptable if the exact example was transposed to the US.  Further, I wonder if this happened in the US - especially under Trump - if there wouldn't be incredible outrage at even the notion the woman had to make a handshake.  

Try to bear in mind that the very opposite will happen in France. Few people will be shocked by the State's stance on religious issues. It's part of the political heritage. 

Also the article posted by Errant Bard says there were multiple instances of the woman refusing handshakes. She deliberately took a stance to create a legal issue, hoping that the State Council would rule in her favor. She should have known better.

[DMC]

13 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Try to bear in mind that the very opposite will happen in France. Few people will be shocked by the State's stance on religious issues. It's part of the political heritage. 

Will it?  We'll see.  The fact few people will be shocked by the state's stance is totally the problem.

15 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Also the article posted by Errant Bard says there were multiple instances of the woman refusing handshakes. She deliberately took a stance to create a legal issue, hoping that the State Council would rule in her favor. She should have known better.

No, she shouldn't have "known better."  In fact, good for her for knowing it would be deliberately provocative.  She should create a legal issue - because if this a legal issue, that's fucked up and wrong.

[Rippounet]

6 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Will it?  We'll see.  The fact few people will be shocked by the state's stance is totally the problem.

It's a problem that a modern Western state has decided that equality and the rule of law are more important than personal belief in ancient fairy tales ? 

And I think we'll see nothing. It's been almost two weeks and Le Monde apparently hasn't even published an article about it. Were it not for this forum I don't think I'd ever have heard about this. 

And the fact that no one cares is terrific. It's absolutely the best thing about this décision. 

[Seli]

10 hours ago, Yukle said:

Except Muslims are nothing new in France, so what has the country been doing for the past 1,000 years if it has only just noticed this now?

...

Islam has changed, France has changed.

And it isn't like France hasn't been very practical on their views on religion in the chase for power before. On the one hand this is a country where the Catholic majority waged wars and finally expelled the Calvinist minority. On the other a most Catholic nation waging wars with protestants against the Holy Roman Emperor itself (30 years war). And of course they had a long history of diplomatic ties and alliances with the Ottoman empire, because they did have common enemies (which happened to be Christian).

7 hours ago, Yukle said:

I understand that, I meant that this is absolutely not the first time it has happened. There are all sorts of reasons, it's just that in this particular case the presiding officer decided to make a point. There would even have been times where he forgot to offer a handshake, and nothing would've happened, no one would have cared.

The point was to say that if she wasn't a Muslim, it might not have even occurred to the presiding officer to deny it. There's no doubt that her religion was a factor in his decision, possibly the only factor beyond her refusal itself.

...

Keep in mind this is France, an aggressively secular nation where you are supposed to keep your religion at home. Which gives a strong shield to those punishing people showing their religion, specifically in ways that are not traditionally French.

[DMC]

56 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

It's a problem that a modern Western state has decided that equality and the rule of law are more important than personal belief in ancient fairy tales ? 

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

58 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

And I think we'll see nothing. It's been almost two weeks and Le Monde apparently hasn't even published an article about it. Were it not for this forum I don't think I'd ever have heard about this. 

Yeah, that's kind of the point.  No one cares when there's blatant disregard for basic human rights - as long as it doesn't emanate from the US.  We're the evil devil, and again if this happened in the US y'all would be full of outrage.  But whatever.  Just demonstrates the hypocrisy.  I'll remember next time everybody shits all over the US, which is, like, all the fucking time.

[polishgenius]

2 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Yeah, that's kind of the point.  No one cares when there's blatant disregard for basic human rights - as long as it doesn't emanate from the US.  We're the evil devil, and again if this happened in the US y'all would be full of outrage.  But whatever.  Just demonstrates the hypocrisy.  I'll remember next time everybody shits all over the US, which is, like, all the fucking time.

Oh for fuck's sake. That's what all your ire and disgust were really about? Not really concerned about her right to her religion, but waaaah people are mean about the US?

If this happened in the US there would be an entirely different drive behind it because it would shit on America's obsession with freedom of speech. In France the obsession is far more with this division of church and state and that's why nobody (in France) cares. Because this is seen as an embodiment of that.


Like Rippounet says, they have to be careful because it is at this moment an easy tool to use for Islamophobia- and in general I feel that former colonial countries have somewhat of a duty of responsibility to the former colonies and as such need to treat immigration from those places carefully and not just dismissively - but at the end of the day this isn't the US and the motivations behind the action and public reaction to it aren't necessarily the same as they would be in the US.

[Seli]

The hand-shake has been a hot button topic in integration discussions in (Western) Europe for a while (in local Dutch news items on a cursory search go back at least a decade). There was a related issue in Belgium in the last weeks. The Christian party had put an Orthodox Jew on the ballot for local elections, but he decided not to stand in the end in part because he refused to shake hands with women.

http://deredactie.be/cm/vrtnieuws.english/Politics/1.3182328

Quote

Mr Berger then went on to give the reasons for him no longer wishing to stand.

"After having spoking with the Minister and some party members I realize that the issue of me not wishing to shake will not be resolved by me shaking a woman’s hand today for which I have the permission of a Rabbi”, Mr Berger said.

On Tuesday, Mr Peeters had let it be understood that Mr Berger would have to shake women’s hands if he wanted to stand on the Christian democrat’s list for the municipal elections. However, Mr Berger’s religious convictions prevent him from doing so.

 

[DMC]

22 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

Oh for fuck's sake. That's what all your ire and disgust were really about? Not really concerned about her right to her religion, but waaaah people are mean about the US?

I don't think there was any ire nor disgust about anything happening in the US.  Just the opposite, in fact, that was kind of the point.

22 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

If this happened in the US there would be an entirely different drive behind it because it would shit on America's obsession with freedom of speech. In France the obsession is far more with this division of church and state and that's why nobody (in France) cares. Because this is seen as an embodiment of that.

In the US it'd be entirely different, based on the politics.  Drudge made a huge ass thing about Obama observing cultural traditions when meeting any foreign national that didn't involve handshakes.  Then, when Trump did the same thing, those like of handshakes didn't seem to matter to the Trump (FNC) crowd.  What would happen if this happened in the US?  Likely nothing.  You know why?  Because we're much bigger than France, and don't care as much.  The problem is Trump refuting refugees in a much larger group, no one gives a shit how they are greeting people - likely because most of those outside the eleites don't get the chance to greet anybody.

22 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

but at the end of the day this isn't the US and the motivations behind the action and public reaction to it aren't necessarily the same as they would be in the US.

Keep telling yourself that.  What's going on is islamophobia.  A woman doesn't wanna shake your hand?  Whatever, let her do that.  You deny her right to do so?  Yeah, that's islamophobia.  All the justification otherwise is just a bunch of bullshit.  "Assimilation," "cultural differences," fuck off.  If this was the US you'd all be screaming bloody murder - and you'd be in the right to.

[Alarich II]

25 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Keep telling yourself that.  What's going on is islamophobia.  A woman doesn't wanna shake your hand?  Whatever, let her do that.  You deny her right to do so?  Yeah, that's islamophobia.  All the justification otherwise is just a bunch of bullshit.  "Assimilation," "cultural differences," fuck off.  If this was the US you'd all be screaming bloody murder - and you'd be in the right to.

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.

[Errant Bard]

4 hours ago, dmc515 said:

Will it?  We'll see.  The fact few people will be shocked by the state's stance is totally the problem.

No, she shouldn't have "known better."  In fact, good for her for knowing it would be deliberately provocative.  She should create a legal issue - because if this a legal issue, that's fucked up and wrong.

She made it legal by appeling to the state council, and the council upheld the prefect's decision.

Also, keep in mind France does not use common law but roman law so I feel what you envision as "legal issue" makes no sense in the context.

[Rippounet]

3 hours ago, dmc515 said:

Yeah, that's kind of the point.  No one cares when there's blatant disregard for basic human rights - as long as it doesn't emanate from the US.  We're the evil devil, and again if this happened in the US y'all would be full of outrage. 

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 ? 

[IheartIheartTesla]

So she passes a barrage of tests that demonstrated her assimilation. And then didnt shake someone's hand which iinvalidated those series of tests that were carefully designed to show someone was suitable for French citizenship.

I have an idea then for simplifying the process of gaining French citizenship. I call it "The handshake test". It eliminates the need to provide tax returns, proof of employment and residence within the country and all other such laborious procedures. Win-win for everyone.