Jump to content

The Significant Handshake - France on Citizenship


Fragile Bird

Recommended Posts

33 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

 But this is not one of those cases.  It's a fucking handshake.


Why are you deliberatly and repeatedly ignoring the point that it isn't the lack of handshake that is a problem but the viewpoint that refusal represents?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours 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.

No. You're still not getting it. The traditions are different. The First Amendment to the US Constitution guarantees freedom of religion - without stating limits. The first article of the French Constitution proclaims a secular  (laïc) republic. It then states that one shall not be discriminated against on religious grounds BUT also immediately insists on equality between men and women. More importantly the Constitution explains that it is based on the 1789 declaration of human  (and citizen's) rights which in its article 4 says that the free exercise of individual rights are only guaranteed so far as such an exercise does not prevent the *equal benefit of individual rights by all* ; it also states that limits on individual rights may be placed by law.

Understanding Article 4 of the 1789 declaration and how it has been interpreted throughout history is fundamental to understand French values and traditions. It basically means equality is of higher value than individual liberty. It states that the law may limit individual freedom for the greater good.

And of course, in this case, it means religious freedom is not guaranteed if it denies equality - like between men and women. 

In many ways the French perspective on individual rights is very different from the American one. On the surface the texts on constitutional principles may look similar but there are subtle differences and the tradition and history behind them make the principles different. You can't talk about French constitutional principles while ignoring or dismissing the context of the 1789 revolution, which was nothing like the American one.

Edited : ok I was wrong here. 

And it's not just refusing a "fucking handshake," it's saying women are not allowed to touch men - outside their husband and relatives. Something which is totally at odds with French traditions. And this matters. Human rights are fine and dandy but they may be seen differently in different cultures. A hijab is not seen as infringing on women's rights in Saudi Arabia, but is forbidden in France nonetheless. It's not that much to ask of a future citizen to conform to the local expectations. After all, France has no obligation to tolerate religious practices that might be considered shocking by the vast majority of its citizens, if only to make sure they do not affect the public order. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah I think I found a simple way to explain it. 

The French principle is that you can't be discriminated against because of your religion. This doesn't mean the State cannot place limits on your religious freedom (there are many), it means the limits have to be applied in the same way for all religions. For instance if teachers are banned from wearing a veil or a head scarf they will also be forbidden from wearing a kippah or a cross. 

That’s what laïcité is : limits on religious freedom in the public sphere that can't be designed against a single religion. 

And yes it can be seen as hypocritical today, which is why I think authorities should be very careful of avoiding anything bordering on islamophobia. But the entire point of laïcité was originally to limit the influence and privileges of the Christian clergy. 

It's a bit hard to grasp for Americans I think because at its core it's the very oposite of freedom of religion. But to be fair, the First Amendment isn't easier to understand for the French.

Edit: And yes, this means laïcité violates article 18 of the UN declaration of human rights. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Ormond said:

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. 

If I, as a non-believer, refused to say that oath because of "so help me God" wording at the end, I would not be allowed to become a US citizen, correct?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, the US Oath of citizenship is not the only problematic part. In order to even get to that part, you need to fill out the Form N-400 (https://www.uscis.gov/n-400), which among other things, asks you:

- Have you ever been a member of Communist party or any other totalitarian party?

- Have you ever been married to more than one person at the same time? (a much more clear-cut violation of Muslim religious rights than the handshake thing)

- Are you willing to take arms on the behalf of United States? (a violation of rights of pacifist religions)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jesus Christ.  Just shake the fucking hand.  It’s really not unreasonable.  

Sometimes in life multiple things that are important to you come into conflict and you must decide to either concede on one front or the other - or walk away.  That is life.  Make your decision and live with the consequences.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gorn said:

If I, as a non-believer, refused to say that oath because of "so help me God" wording at the end, I would not be allowed to become a US citizen, correct?

I am a non-believer and did not use the phrase "so help me God"; it can be omitted on request. The point was moot during my ceremony since we had a somewhat eccentric judge who swore everyone in at once and didnt use that phrase at all.

(I also tried making the Vulcan peace sign while I was being sworn in but my wife quickly put a stop to that)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

We have privileges. 

Words have meaning defined by human society and rights are not privileges. Jesus, stop trying to be the jaded emo nihilist whatever because you think it makes you look cool.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Errant Bard said:

Words have meaning defined by human society and rights are not privileges. Jesus, stop trying to be the jaded emo nihilist whatever because you think it makes you look cool.

Child please.

Calling me jaded is fair. That’s what a decade working in politics will do to you. However a nihilist would never do that. And I doubt most people would call a guy emo if in high school he would have been labeled a preppy affluent jock.

As far as rights go, please, phone my great-great-grandfather. He was murdered by the state because he was a Rabbi. Call several of his kids too. The German state saw to their end simply because of who they were. Call my FwB’s ancestors too. Japanese Americans had so many rights in the 1940’s.

Hell, call that black kid from Sacramento’s family who got shot 8 times by the police just the other day for the high crime of entering his Grandmother’s home while holding a….. wait for it……. cellphone.

We don’t have rights dude. We have privileges because we’re a part of society. And when said society decides to take them away, well, were they ever really rights?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/24/2018 at 4:04 PM, polishgenius said:

Why are you deliberatly and repeatedly ignoring the point that it isn't the lack of handshake that is a problem but the viewpoint that refusal represents?

So as to emphasize it's an innocuous gesture that has absolutely zero tangible effect on the state.  And the only thing it "represents" is that the French demands a citizen gives precedence to the state over their religious beliefs even in the most ceremonial of actions.  It that was a universal standard, there are literally millions - if not billions - of devout followers of myriad religions that would refuse an analogous demand, and the vast majority of those still retain citizenship in their respective country.

On 4/24/2018 at 4:59 PM, Rippounet said:

Understanding Article 4 of the 1789 declaration and how it has been interpreted throughout history is fundamental to understand French values and traditions. It basically means equality is of higher value than individual liberty. It states that the law may limit individual freedom for the greater good.

So, you mean Article 4 as articulated here, right?:

Quote

4. Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights. These limits can only be determined by law.

Where is the injury to anybody else?  And, more importantly, where is this precedence of equality over liberty you refer to?

On 4/24/2018 at 4:59 PM, Rippounet said:

It's not that much to ask of a future citizen to conform to the local expectations. After all, France has no obligation to tolerate religious practices that might be considered shocking by the vast majority of its citizens, if only to make sure they do not affect the public order. 

First, yes, it is that much to ask of a future citizen if it violates their religious norms.  This is the same line of argument for english to be the national language, and it's faulty on all sides.  Assimilation is something that is achieved through encouragement and mutual understanding, not by force of law.  The latter produces the opposite.  Second, you're right, France has no obligation to tolerate religious practices - which are not at all shocking to anybody that retains common sense and plainly do not affect the public order - but they should.  This is a normative argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, dmc515 said:

Where is the injury to anybody else?  And, more importantly, where is this precedence of equality over liberty you refer to?

In the law ? Duh ! Not trying to understand what I write is bad enough, but you could at least make an effort to understand what you're writing. 

As to the injury, it's quite obvious what it was to anyone who's arguing in good faith. Not that you're really discussing the case, you're too bent on expressing outrage for that. And you've made your point, or to be accurate, I think I made it for you in the end. But the problem with normative claims is that they boil down to personal opinion. You'll never make me, or France, see the value of religious freedom. Nor will I convince you that such religious "freedom" is worthless. That's what having different values is all about. I did enjoy the exchange though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/24/2018 at 7:10 AM, 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.

If I understood correctly what I read on the link that Scott provided (and if my basic understanding of Islam is not wrong), this women's reason for refusing to shake hands is not that men and women are not equal in her opinion but that her religion states that it's a sin for members of the opposite sex to touch if they are not in one of the allowed relationships with each other (husband-wife, brother-sister, parent-child etc.).

Neither is in compliance with French (and European in general) traditions and customs and I think that French government and its representatives are within their rights not to grant her citizenship. As someone already stated, having a specific country's citizenship is not a human right and countries have rights to refuse someone.

The requirement to show that you have assimilated into the country's society is nothing new or uncommon. I would even say that every single country in the world should have such a requirement one must meet in order to be granted citizenship. There are even countries who would require that this woman denounces her Algerian citizenship in order to grant her their citizenship which is way worse than expecting her to shake hands at the ceremony.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, dmc515 said:

First, yes, it is that much to ask of a future citizen if it violates their religious norms.  This is the same line of argument for english to be the national language, and it's faulty on all sides.  Assimilation is something that is achieved through encouragement and mutual understanding, not by force of law.  The latter produces the opposite.  Second, you're right, France has no obligation to tolerate religious practices - which are not at all shocking to anybody that retains common sense and plainly do not affect the public order - but they should.  This is a normative argument.

Again, USA bans polygamists from becoming US citizens. This is a way of life which is specifically permitted by Muslim religious law, widely practiced in Gulf monarchies, and which does not harm the state in any tangible way. It is also something far more defining and irreversible for a person compared to shaking (or not shaking) someone's hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, dmc515 said:

And the only thing it "represents" is that the French demands a citizen gives precedence to the state over their religious beliefs even in the most ceremonial of actions.

Yes, that's what the French demand, expect, during the formal ceremony of citizenship or in the most mundane situation. This secularism is at the core of French culture currently.  This is how it is. We don't view religion the way you do. Your outrage at differences between our cultures is puzzling.

 

I will repeat it for emphasis: indeed, In France, it's a no brainer since 1905 that:

1) the public sphere is religion-free

2) Being French supersedes any other identity/group.

 

If you understand this, you get the policies about regional languages, absence of race politics, anti-multiculturalism, rejection of visible communities, religions, and so on.

 

2 hours ago, baxus said:

If I understood correctly what I read on the link that Scott provided (and if my basic understanding of Islam is not wrong), this women's reason for refusing to shake hands is not that men and women are not equal in her opinion but that her religion states that it's a sin for members of the opposite sex to touch if they are not in one of the allowed relationships with each other (husband-wife, brother-sister, parent-child etc.).

 

Well, the AFP brief is rather terse, but I have to point that for some time in France now, religious customs that impose boundaries or specific roles depending on sex are seen as an issue of gender equality versus law and society, and this feeling can be instrumentalized sometimes by our right-winger to whip up some ridiculous frenzies , I mean, you probably have heard of the so called "Burkini" debate, and if not, just know that it's actually forbidden to wear a Niqab in public around here and it's presented as a women freedom law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Rippounet said:

In the law ? Duh ! Not trying to understand what I write is bad enough, but you could at least make an effort to understand what you're writing. 

Wow, whatever.  I responded specifically to Article 4 - and get no response but dismissive "the law duh" back.  This is pathetic, you can't make a substantive argument on the probative value of such a law - let alone actually specifically citing "the law (duh)" and/or digging into its constitutional merits.  

5 hours ago, Rippounet said:

As to the injury, it's quite obvious what it was to anyone who's arguing in good faith.

I'm arguing in bad faith?  The injury is not "quite obvious" in the slightest.  You have not provided any standards on the extent of "Laicite" other than using it to write off any religious discrimination as "customary" because I don't understand your country.  Talk about a superiority complex.

5 hours ago, Rippounet said:

But the problem with normative claims is that they boil down to personal opinion.

Ha!  Seriously?  No shit they all boil down to personal opinion - so, too, do pretty much every empirical claim made in social science.  Not to mention literally every single discussion on this board.  But, sorry, guess I know not to challenge French beliefs in the future because the defense is a juvenile "you just don't understand" response.  Hm, I wonder what other cultures tend to provide a similar posture.

2 hours ago, Gorn said:

Again, USA bans polygamists from becoming US citizens.

Comparing a handshake to polygamy is laughable.  And yes, polygamy can have a tangible harm to the state because if propagated women would effectively be reduced to chattel.  All that happens if this case is propagated is awkward ceremonial dinners.

47 minutes ago, Errant Bard said:

If you understand this, you get the policies about regional languages, absence of race politics, anti-multiculturalism, rejection of visible communities, religions, and so on.

For the last time, I'm not saying I don't understand it.  I'm saying it's wrong.  And when all people can do in defense is say "it's tradition," the argument begins to look like this:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm pulling a 180 on this one.  Our Euro friends have quite convinced me.  I'm not a fan of religion in public, so why not just lie and say you don't want to shake hands because it's unsanitary?  

I think it's kind of a petty point to insist on the handshake but I guess if she wants to put her religion out front as the reason for it, she went down that road.  

I don't know where I'd draw the line though on cultural conformity, I'd be uncomfortable with language madates and the anti-multiculturalism, but that's probably just my USian showing.

On 4/24/2018 at 10:39 PM, IheartIheartTesla said:

I am a non-believer and did not use the phrase "so help me God"; it can be omitted on request. The point was moot during my ceremony since we had a somewhat eccentric judge who swore everyone in at once and didnt use that phrase at all.

(I also tried making the Vulcan peace sign while I was being sworn in but my wife quickly put a stop to that)

This sounds absolutely wonderful.  A shame the Vulcan peace sign was nipped in the bud though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, dmc515 said:

But, sorry, guess I know not to challenge French beliefs in the future because the defense is a juvenile "you just don't understand" response. 

For the last time, I'm not saying I don't understand it.  I'm saying it's wrong.  

I think everyone got that. The problem is that as far as I'm concerned, judging another country's values basically ends the discussion. I acknowledged that you were correct, that the case is technically a violation of human rights as understood throughout the world, and even that the entire "laïcité" tradition violates article 18 of the UN declaration. I'm not saying it's a good thing, but I nonetheless stand behind my country's legal and constitutional principles, as well as my country's right to decide what are the requirements of citizenship (including cultural ones). I tried to explain all this, not to convince anyone it is necessarily right (I know better than to try).

Now you say you think it's wrong. Ok. You're entitled to your opinion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...