They’re not losing her as a productive member of society, she’ll still be a permanent resident. They’re saying “you don’t get the passport and other specific rights and protections unless and until your customs match those of French society”, not deporting her.
This is horrible and it’s the opposite of what I consider the values of a secular society.
I have no love for religions that segregate men and women socially, but it’s not the business of the state to regulate this kind of stuff.
It’s a fucking handshake. It’s not like she wants to sacrifice a child to Baal on the new moon. Jesus, no one should have to shake hands if they don’t want to. Maybe they’re a germaphobe, maybe they find the practice uncomfortable. To deny citizenship on such petty grounds is beyond bullshit. I’m astonished to see people in this thread defending it.
“Petty” was exactly the word I was going to use. I don’t see how refusing to shake hands with men because they are men represents some kind of crippling blow to a society–certainly, an individual is not going to threaten the underpinnings of a strong society by opting out of shaking hands.
I’m curious: is there a list that people can consult, a list of things you *must *do or *cannot *do if you wish to become a French citizen? A list of things that define “being French”? What else is on it? Do you have to demonstrate a commitment to recycling, a willingness to eat cheese? Can you become a French citizen if you choose not to participate in voting? If you thinjk that Christianity should be the state religion? Or if you root for the Italian soccer team to beat the French? Or if you insist in continuing to speak in your home language on the sidewalks?
I’m only sort of being facetious; seriously, where do you draw the lines? I recognize, yes, that France is entitled to do whatever it wants, but this one seems … petty.
(Or intentionally discriminatory. It does have the effect of limiting the ability of Muslims to become citizens–I recognize that the prohibiion on shaking hands with people of the opposite sex is cultural rather than purely religious, but let’s be honest about what religion it most affects–and, no, I don’t think that’s a coincidence. My dad spent several summers teaching in Europe during the eighties and nineties, mostly in German-speaking countries. He went to France one year, though. He liked many things about it a lot, but when he came home to the US he said that he would never again “politely listen” to a European lecturing him about race relations. He said that the treatment of Muslims by the French, especially by the rightist parties, was at least as bad as anti-African American sentiment in the US at the time. He was not easily appalled, but that did the trick. Hard to escape the conclusion that things haven’t improved.)
Quite right. Anglophone North American countries tend to have as part of their founding mythology the idea of having started as a haven for religious practitioners persecuted by an oppressive government. Think of the mythology of the Pilgrims in the United States, for example. As such, the North American anglophone concept of separation of church and state has developed to mean, as you say, freedom of religion, where the government should not interfere with religious practices. This means that North American anglophones are willing to go quite far in terms of accommodating religious practices; in fact, it seems that they give religion a higher value than other parts of a person’s identity (separate from other cultural elements) and make religious diversity almost synonymous with diversity itself.
France is quite different in this regard, and as you say values a secularist ideology. It is true that French secularism is rather strict, but it doesn’t single out anyone. It aims to keep religion outside of the public sphere and in the private sphere. Obviously that’s not for everyone, but those who don’t like it shouldn’t try to become French. There’s no country that’s the right one for everybody.
Seems petty to me. Would they have been as understanding if she was just a germophobe or is it specifically because she claimed religious reasons? Then again they don’t seem to concerned with medical issues either. The treatment of autistic people in France is abysmal.
This is all well and good, but I am really struggling to see how a hand shake is any business of the State. Will she now be required to shake hands everywhere in her new role as a citizen? This is not secularism. This is systemic persecution by the government of Muslims and it makes me uncomfortable, just as I would be uncomfortable if they were acting against Jews, or other groups on the basis of their religion.
It sure is the business of the state! “The values of a secular society” are not equal to “the values of religious freedom”. In a secular society, people’s religion does not interfere with how they treat their neighbours. A secular society doesn’t have to allow for religious differences if they don’t feel like it.
If you’re going to actually become a member of somebody’s church, you go along with the customs they consider important, and you agree to give up any customs of your own that conflict with that. If you’re going to become a member of French society, you likewise are not free to act however the hell you want just because it’s the way you always used to do things.
Every freedom has limits, and each society decides where the limits are. Some things matter to them, other things don’t. It’s up to France to decide if being French means you shake hands with people, and up to France to decide if that’s more important or less. I, not being French, don’t have to agree - until I decide I want to be a French citizen, in which case either I start agreeing or I give up my citizenship plans.
I have a feeling that not shaking hands is merely one easily-reported sign among a larger list of French characteristics that this person was unwilling to become part of.
There was a big fuss in Quebec a few years ago. Quebec (at least rural Quebec) used to be a very religious society, where if you were not a French Roman Catholic there was pretty much no place for you anywhere. Society there has changed significantly, and it’s now quite secular. Bills were proposed a few years ago in the Quebec Assembly that if you had any kind of government job you would not be allowed to wear or show ANY sign of ANY religion (not just no turbans, but also no cross on your jewelry, no religious tattoos, nothing). Those restrictions have since been toned down, but … what a society wants, and passes constitutionally-permitted-in-their-country laws about, is that society’s business.
You do get a big mess when a society has some laws that conflict with their own other laws, but that’s too much.
The woman expressly refused to shake the hand of an official conducting the ceremony, claiming religious reasons. This was taken as evidence that she wasn’t assimilated into French society, which is one of the prerequisites for gaining French citizenship. Remember that naturalization is never a right but always a privilege, even for immigrants who’ve lived a long time in the country. They can be asked to show knowledge of the national language, knowledge of history, understanding of cultural customs, etc., all things that demonstrate integration into their new community.
No, because foreign Muslims can become French citizens if they agree to show a level of integration into French society, just like any other group is expected and required to. And many Muslims do become naturalized as French citizens, so there isn’t any fundamental opposition between being Muslim and abiding by French customs. (And even if there were, I’d say France would still be allowed to refuse citizenship to people they perceive as not integrated.)
Personally, I think it’s fucking stupid. But, hey, when you got the power, you make the rules, I guess. Fuck 'em.
“Those gays can get full marriage rights as long as they just agree to integrate into society by marrying someone of the opposite gender.”
The debate in Quebec over this issue is still ongoing. There seems to be a general consensus that government employees in a position of authority (police officers, for example) should not display visible religious symbols while dealing with the public, seeing how they are the visible face of the government’s authority which needs to be neutral. In other words, the government cannot appear to favour or disfavour one group over the others. There is also a general consensus that dealings with representatives of the government should be done with both parties having their face uncovered, both for identification purposes and because covering one’s face implies separating oneself from the community. Now as to whether all agents of the government dealing with the public (even those without explicit authority) should not display religious symbols, this is more controversial and there is no consensus on the question.
Quebec is an interesting case, since the modern Quebec nation was founded in the explicit rejection of oppressive religion, so this shapes the psyche of Quebecers, and it’s influenced by French-style secularism, but it’s also influenced by Canadian values which are rather different, and subject to Canadian courts. Canada is a multinational country that likes to pretend it isn’t (in fact, likes to pretend it isn’t a nation at all), but that’s a topic for another day.
This is not a good analogy for many reasons.
[ul]
[li] Being gay is nothing like being a Muslim, because the former is an unchangeable sexual orientation, while the latter is a religion, so an ideology, so entirely a choice of belief system. (Unless you believe sexual orientation is changeable, which I guess is possible, though certainly not easy to do.)[/li][li] Among Muslims, refusal to shake hands with someone of the opposite gender is usually seen among more rigorist interpretations of the doctrine, that are likely to be correlated with other values that conflict with life in a Western country. Most Muslims would not have an objection to hand-shaking. While if the government recognizes marriage, it typically gives couples very desirable advantages, so most gays would want to get married with their partner. And they would certainly object to it having to be someone of the opposite gender. (But then again, some people in the gay community did think the emphasis on marriage rights was a bit of a red herring and there were more important concerns.)[/li][li] Marriage and naturalization are not the same thing. The woman in this story wasn’t prevented from marrying her husband. In fact, I don’t think showing proof of integration is ever needed to get married.[/li][/ul]
And then again, many countries in the world do prevent same-sex couples from marrying, and some of the arguments against same-sex marriage are certainly defendable. (Will children develop the same way with two parents of the same gender than two parents of different genders? I honestly don’t know.) If a country wants to ban same-sex marriage, it certainly is its prerogative. The reason why it became legal in many Western countries had to do with a major culture change over the last few decades, and as culture and values change, laws change as well.
That certainly could be the case. What other “French characteristics” do you think those might be? I asked before what else would get an application for citizenship denied, and that hasn’t been answered yet.
It’s interesting that you should bring this up…about a year ago I was talking to a colleague, now living in the US, who has very deep roots in Montreal (anglophone but fluent in French).
She told me that in the main government chamber (I think that’s correct) in the Quebec Parliament there is a very large crucifix (not just a cross, but a crucifix) given pride of place.
Her take is that few Quebeckers think it should be taken down (notably, she says, many who are vocal about supporting proposed anti-religious symbol bills are eager to exempt the crucifix), that its defenders talk about it as an item that shows Quebec’s history rather than being a “Christian/Catholic symbol,” but that in her opinion (and that in the opinion of many people she knows) the unwillingness to remove the crucifix indicates that when the Quebec government says “no religious symbols in official government business” it doesn’t really mean that.
Now I don’t have any other information about this and it is possible that her reporting is wrong. But if there is a crucifix (again, a crucifix!) mounted on the wall of the legislative chamber, it’s easy to see that people might interpret a ban on Official Religious Symbols Exceot Crucifixes as having, well, a different motivation.
So: Is there such a thing hanging on the wall of the chamber, or some other important government building? And are there people who are actively seeking its removal, or (as my colleague asserts) is it pretty well settled that it isn’t going anywhere?
Thanks.
Bolding mine
I am very curious about what you mean by this.
As a “North American anglophone” I can assure you that in my world the word “diversity” does not imply “religious diversity”–rather, it almost always implies “racial diversity.”
When a business says “We want to become more diverse” it’s invariably saying it wants more employees of color; when a town or other community laments its “lack of diversity” it means that its population is 98% white and it would really like it if a couple of black families moved in; when a college has a “Diversity on Campus” office its primary (some would say exclusive) focus is on making sure that students and faculty who are not white feel accepted.
There MIGHT be a small “cultural diversity” component here and there, but it’s very much subordinate to the racial diversity that is front and center; and honestly, I hear very little chatter about economic diversity, educational diversity, political diversity, or religious diversity. Certainly I’ve never heard anyone talk about “diversity” using that general term and mean “religious diversity.”
I imagine I’m misinterpreting what you meant… Anyway, if you could explain further I’d be interested.
That’s the difference between freedom of religion and secularism. France practices secularism. Religion has no place in the public square in France. The US, by contrast, practices freedom of religion. The government must not favor religions, but religious practice can enter the public square and is protected conduct.
Taken in context though, France is worried about the lack of assimilation going on. Which is entirely legitimate.
Oh hell no. The first element USanians think of when they say “diversity” is visible ancestry. I was giggling watching one of the people in this several-hundred-people project talk about how diverse the team is because by US terms it’s boringly white (specially if you count the people of Maghreb or Levantine ancestry as white, which we do).
I find it curious that France has no laws of any sort requiring its existing citizens to shake hands with each other.
If it’s so important to them, why is that?
That is absolutely true.
As I said, one can have to show knowledge of the national language, national history, and appreciation of the national values to be granted citizenship. I would say that rigorist interpretations of religion are likely to be correlated with opposition to liberal democracy and to the equality of all citizens, which are French values (as well as values of many other Western countries).
There is, over the speaker’s chair. It was put there surprisingly late, in 1936, under the conservative government of Maurice Duplessis that was very much in league with the Catholic church.
A large number of Quebecers believe the crucifix should be taken down. Maurice Duplessis is largely reviled in modern Quebec as corrupt, dictatorial, and a tool of the Catholic church, and the period of our history when he was our premier is known as the “Great Darkness”. His death ushered a period of great cultural change, known as the Quiet Revolution, in which the modern Quebec nation was born. Most modern Quebecers under the age of 60 or so oppose the Catholic church, and oppressive, patriarchic religion in general. I actually personally think the Duplessis government did do some positive things, and introduced some measures that actually helped kickstart the Quiet Revolution, but that’s actually a fairly nuanced viewpoint.
But it’s true that the presence of this crucifix is very often used by other Canadians as “proof” that Quebecers’ secularism is dishonest and actually a tool to oppress Muslims (and Sikhs, and maybe Jews as well) while keeping Catholicism as an almost official religion. It’s in fact a common talking point in English-Canadian media, which is why your colleague knows about it. (This, to my mind, is actually the best reason why it should be removed.) But even the arguments for maintaining the crucifix usually come down to it being a part of our history, not about the Catholic connection itself. The argument is the same as for keeping the cross atop Mount Royal in Montreal (and that’s a cross I agree should remain where it is). Here is in fact a column (in French) in the Journal de Montréal by Muslim former member of the Quebec National Assembly Fatima Houda-Pepin explaining that to her, this crucifix is a historical and not religious symbol.
One thing you must remember is that in Canada, francophones (at least those in Quebec) and anglophones live in different cultural bubbles and know next to nothing about each other. They can even find it extremely difficult to understand arguments put forth by the other group (if they even hear about them) because of different philosophical assumptions. So even a Montreal anglophone might not know what her francophone neighbours think of the Catholic church, and whether they even think of themselves as Catholic. She’ll only know that a majority of Quebecers still describe themselves as Catholic on censuses, even though weekly church attendance is probably in the tens as a percentage of the population, and that the newer generation will probably not even describe itself as Catholic in any way. Here’s an anecdote for you: I recently learned that Justin Trudeau, the prime minister of Canada, is Catholic. I was genuinely surprised by this fact. The poster child of vaguely progressive Canadian values is actually Catholic? But I’d wager no English-speaking Canadian was surprised by this. The man is a French Canadian, so of course he’s Catholic, what else can he be? But I can tell you that to me it was a genuine surprise. This is just one example among many of how my assumptions are different from an English Canadian’s.
Yes, there are people seeking its removal, probably to be put somewhere else in the National Assembly with a note explaining the historical context. This is what I think should be done about it, but I don’t even live in Quebec anymore so it’s not like I can do anything to “actively” support this position. The reason why it’s not done is that it’s a bit of a political hot potato. There’s been talk about removing it for more than ten years. As far as I can remember, the subject was first brought by the official opposition party in 2007 in the context of a looming election, but they had to back down. I’m not going to lie: there certainly are some voters (probably mostly older people) who want it there as a symbol of affirming their values against the perceived threat of newcomers coming to impose their own values. But these people are nowhere near the majority of the population of Quebec: even most among us who are worried about preserving our values would not think these values are Catholic ones, but rather values of secularism and equality of all citizens (including of men and women). I expect the crucifix will be quietly taken down sometime in the next 10 years, when it’ll be less of a hot-button issue.