It has nothing to do with a slippery slope.
It’s not a slippery slope, so much as a double standard. Nations based on a particular race, language, or faith, have a right to maintain that character. The Arabs are not morally bound to let Mecca develop a Chinatown or a Jewish Quarter, the Japanese are not morally bound to increase their crime rate 10x by letting 2 million Swedes move in, and France is not morally bound to admit religious nuts into their midst. European countries don’t much appreciate Christian fundies either.
So maybe the difference is that his refusal to shake hands has nothing to do with the ability of men and women to interact on an equal basis.
The difference is he isn’t a Muslim. Some Roma women, Orthodox Jewish women, some feminist, some Eastern Orthodox Christian women, some women who are survivors of horrific rapes and sex trafficking, etc., all might refuse to shake hands with a man. And their refusal just like this woman’s refusal should be accepted, proudly, in any culture that wants to claim they respect individual rights. Forcing a woman to touch a man has nothing to do with the ability of men and women to interact on an equal basis.
I’ve been to France. The Roma women don’t seem to have much trouble touching men when they are harrasing them for money.
Only because cultural prejudice makes it difficult for them to obtain other means of earning money. Aside from the fact that there is an ocean of difference between a woman initiating touch and a man demanding it, prevent people from making an honest living, why shouldn’t they turn to crime? And that French official is making a big mistake with his hissy fit over a woman exercising her right to refuse to be touched. It’s not going to encourage assimilation, but further alienation.
If a woman touches me without permission, how is that OK? If a man offering a handshake is attempted rape, then how is an actual touch not assault?
Good question. I’m interested to see the answer as well.
This isn’t really true. Many nations and empires have ruled over multi ethnic stretches of territory. The Persians, the Romans, The Soviet Union. China, which you brought up, has a long history of assimilating and incorporating non-Chinese, most famously the Mongols. Even today China has minorities like the Uighurs and the Tibetans. Iran has Kurds and Arabs. The situation for minorities in a lot of countries isn’t great, to put it mildly, but they exist and are citizens.
Also, are you really advocating for racially pure ethno-states? Have you seen the kind of people who are on your side? Richard Spencer, for one.
They sure do! I mean who can stop them? Not people shooting the shit on a message board, that’s for sure. But just as with individuals, we can criticize and disagree. You have the right to publish a profanity filled screed against some group. I can find you an obnoxious asshole for doing so.
Again, this is a handshake. This woman apparently met all the requirements for French citizenship until she committed the horrible crime of not wanting to shake hands with a strange man. The French are within their rights, but I’m within my rights to call them a bunch of petty dipshits.
Handshakes are bodily contact. Generally people value their bodily autonomy, which includes the right to reject contact. This can be for any reason–including religious reasons–or no reason at all. No one has the right to bodily contact with another without their consent. To make citizenship contingent on an unwanted touch is reprehensible.
Say you were applying for membership in some organization. Say a condition of membership was that the official reveiwer got to stick his tongue down your throat and grope your testicles. I doubt you would be OK with that even if you were the most atheist atheist who ever athed. What is the logic behind making membership contingent on accepting unwanted contact?
After we have had four thousand years of recorded history in which women viciously, sexually violate men, large scale rape of males in occupied territory by armies of women, and a multi-million dollar prostitution industry based on renting men’s bodies to women, you might have a point. But that Golden Age hasn’t occurred yet. Ideally people should keep their hands off others unless they have permission. However female panhandlers are often forced into that type of work because they are denied the opportunity of legitimate work. If you force someone to be a criminal, you shouldn’t be surprised if they victimize you in retaliation.
What about male panhandlers? Are they allow to touch women passers-by?
Secularism was initiated in France to relieve the French people of the oppressive role of the Roman Catholic Church in French government… A secular government was a means of guaranteeing religious freedom in the private sphere. It was not intended to impose secularity on the people by forcing them to deny their religious beliefs.
Given that, a secular gesture by a government official is hardly a good litmus test for whether someone would adopt French values.
It most certainly does. It’s much stricter than in the USA, in fact.
And since when being French mandates that I must shake hand with people? I can refuse to shake the hand of an official for any reason (say, I don’t like him or I’m germophobic) or no reason at all. That might be poor form, but it’s most certainly my right. And hers.
I think this court decision is a disgrace.
[QUOTE=clairobscur;20922027 I can refuse to shake the hand of an official for any reason (say, I don’t like him or I’m germophobic) or no reason at all. That might be poor form, but it’s most certainly my right. And hers.
I think this court decision is a disgrace.[/QUOTE]
But she didn’t refuse to shake his hand for those reasons, she did it because her interpretation of her religion does not allow a woman to touch a man. What happens if a policeman trues to arrest her or a fireball tries to rescue her? Will she be teaching her children (French citizens) those beliefs?
If you reread clairobscur’s post, you will see the phrase “for any reason.” Which means, I assume, “for any reason.” Which might include religious reasons, yes? clairobscur, who is French (or is at least giving the impression of being French), is saying that the refusal to shake hands with anyone at all is a basic right in France. For any reason. This actually seems pretty straightforward.
If she teaches her children the same belief, well, that’s pretty straightforward too. France must surely already have citizens who won’t shake hands. For any reason, which might include religious reasons. What does France do with those people? I imagine they don’t lock them up or execute them or deport them for having that belief. (If they do, I’d like a cite, thanks.) And yet, the republic still stands. Even in a society that values a certain cultural expression, not everyone will buy into it. So it goes.
As for the “what happens…”, well, it does seem to me that the state has a strong interest in overruling religious objections if it becomes important to arrest someone. I’m not in France, I’m in the US, but I had a friend who was the director of the county probation department, and there was a big stir a while back when a woman on probation said she would not allow probation officers into her apartment unless they took off their shoes, for religious reasons (I think she said she was Muslim but I’m not sure). My friend said “Think again,” and when it went to court the judge agreed with her: the woman had every right to tell the officers to remove their shoes, and if she did then the probation dept had every right to lock her back up again. (She decided maybe there was a loophole…) The state clearly has an interest. Whereas, it’s really hard to see how shaking hands (from any objective perspective) rises to the same level of importance.
And again, if it does, why? I asked before what other surprises might be lurking for a person who wishes to become a French citizen, surprises which will not be revealed until the day of the ceremony. I haven’t really gotten an answer. (Someone mentioned the ability to speak the language and a knowledge of the country’s history, which seem perfectly reasonable and standard for many countries, but seem also like the sorts of things you establish before there’s a naturalization ceremony, though maybe in the case of France I’m wrong.)
I’m looking for things that are Essentially Anti-French that, quite honestly, seem fairly minor. So, since secularization is a key, are people wearing crucifixes to their naturalization ceremonies told to take them off, and the invitation to become a citizen revoked if they refuse? Is a Sikh allowed to wear a turban? Is “La Marseilles” sung, and if a person refuses to sing along or doesn’t know all the words, are they out on their ass? And if not, why not?
The cowbell story from Switzerland was interesting. It’s crazier in some way than the France one was (I mean, cowbell??), but what makes it different is that disliking cowbells (or, being annoying) isn’t the province of any particular cultural, ethnic, or religious group. Whereas refusing to shake hands with a person of the opposite sex is…a little different.
I said earlier that the refusal to allow this woman to become a citizen was petty. Reading some of the comments since then I’m revising that to mean-spirited. Unfortunately, might be even more than that.
Thanks to all who replied to my query about the crucifix in Quebec, especially the long and informative response from Hypnagogic Jerk excerpted above.
I’ll tell you what this reminds me of from my US standpoint: the flap about the Confederate flag flying over the South Carolina statehouse. The analogy isn’t perfect, partly because I would never draw a clear line linking the Catholic Church and the Confederacy, but there’s a lot that’s familiar. A symbol closely linked to a dominant group; those who complain about it are told to lighten up, it isn’t what it seems, it’s just about “heritage”; a symbol that doesn’t actually date back all that far, as these things go; a notion that there are “outsiders” complaining who don’t really understand what it’s all about.
**Barbarian **said it well upstairs, I think: it’s “Catho-secularity.” Maybe it really is politically tough to get rid of the crucifix, but boy oh boy is it difficult for me to hear an argument that says “we need to get rid of religious symbols in government and in public life” on the one hand and “we are perfectly okay having a symbol of the dominant religion hanging in the legislative chamber,” which of course is about as “in public life” as you can get.
My colleague, mentioned earlier, is not only anglophone but non-Catholic (she’s Orthodox), so that helps put her concerns in perspective for me. Seems like any non-Catholic would find this one difficult to swallow–probably even harder though for non-Christians.
One point. In the US at least Catholicism is very very tribal, and I would imagine the same is true in Canada. I know a ton of people who will tell you that they’re Catholic, even though they literally never go to church, haven’t been since they were small children if that, couldn’t tell you the name of their local parish priest, and don’t have any particular fondness for church doctrine. But they’re Catholic!! I don’t generally have people who have no church connections tell me “I’m Presbyterian” or “I’m Methodist.” So even if the number of people who attend services in Quebec has dropped sharply, I bet there is still a powerful identification with “being Catholic”–and I bet it will last at least another couple of generations.
Finally–HJ, you said you had no idea that Justin Trudeau was Catholic. I’m with RickJay here–I’m surprised that you didn’t know that. I mean, I knew that Pierre was Catholic–if nothing else, from a news item I read about a bunch of visits he made to monasteries or something–and therefore JUstin probably too. But mostly it’s just playing the odds. An overwhelming percentage of French Canadians are RC–it would be a huge surprise if the Trudeaus weren’t among them. So did you mean “practicing Catholic”? Or was there some other reason why you would have expected them to be Protestant? From where I sit, it doesn’t make much sense.
Most of that is a relic of empire building by various countries, or border drawing by greater powers that denied peoples self determination. Since we’re talking about France, they have Basques, and of course some Walloons and Germans.
That still does not change the fact that France is the homeland of the French people. All it does is mean that France should probably be slightly smaller so that the Basques can have a homeland too.
Well first, I don’t advocate for that for the United States, which is a pretty big difference between me and Richard Spencer. Secondly, what I’m advocating for is something people over the entire political spectrum have advocated for for centuries: self determination of peoples. You can’t have self determination if you’re morally obligated to allow you to be driven into minority status in your own historic homeland. If they wanted to, China and India overnight could turn several nearby countries into China and India. The Thais, Vietnamese, Cambodians, Laotians, Malaysians, Phillipinos, and even the Japanese could just be greater China if China had a policy of spreading Chinese around and those countries allowed them to do it. India could swamp Bangladesh, Pakistan, Afghanistan, really take over most of the Arab world if they wanted to, just by sending their people to go live there. Again, if the Arab states would allow that, which they never will.
Once you accept that the Thais have a right to a Thai homeland, then their right to accept non-Thais in only limited numbers and under condition of basically becoming Thai makes perfect sense. There is nothing xenophobic about Thais saying that 50 million Chinese can’t settle in Thailand because they fouled up their own homeland and want better incomes in Thailand. As it is, Thailand is 14% Chinese. They’ve done their part to help the less fortunate empire to their north. As a matter of fact, Thailand refers to their Chinese citizens as “Thai Chinese”. If the Chinese living there have a problem wtih being Thai, they shouldn’t have Thai citizenship.
Speaking as a student of history, arguments like this drive me crazy. CRAZY.
What the fuck is a French person? How do you define it? Where does it cut off? Are Bretons today French? Were Bretons 700 years ago French? Are French-speaking Swiss French? What about French-speaking Walloons in Belgium? Are the Provencal who weren’t part of the French state until 1486 French? Were the Provencal in 1386 French? Are French-speaking Algerian émigrés NOT French? For fuck’s sake the country is named after a German tribal confederation and was originally West Francia, East Francia of course roughly equaling modern West Germany.
For some weird reason people think “peoples” are some unchanging, eternal thing. They are not as Cnut, king of England, Denmark and Norway might have told you.
I won’t even try and get into the issues around thinking “Indians” or “Chinese” are some homogeneous ethnic group.
Just fills me with grrr, it does.
Well, if there’s no “peoples” then I assume you don’t think self determination or the desire for a national homeland is legitimate? The Kurds have no claim, Tibetans have no claim, and if Lithuania became majority Russian then the Lithuanians should just be cool with that?
More or less, yes.
I draw the line at exploitation and abuse, of course. So the Tibetans got a pretty solid argument that they’re being oppressed and sometimes oppressed minorities need a place of their own, the reality of tribalism being what it is. Sadly reality has a tendency to occasionally intrude rudely and poop all over my philosophical preferences. So I’m far from an absolutist on the topic.
But generally? Yeah - not in favor of ethnic states.
Howabout you? Where do you draw the line? Do the Sorbs living in Germany deserve their own state if they so desired?