quote:

---

(Berlin) Under a new law that went into effect this week the state of Baden-Württemberg is requiring that Muslims applying to become German citizens take a cultural test to determine if they "are suitable".

The test will seek their views on homosexuality and other issues such as bigamy and women's rights. The exam will be on top of a federal test which includes language proficiency skills and a general knowledge of the country.

[...]

Those who pass the test and become German citizens could have it revoked if they are found guilty of homophobia or other crimes such as wife-beating. 

[...]

Critics say that the test is biased and discriminatory because it is applied only to Muslims. They say that if a test is to be given it should be administered to any applicant for citizenship.

Supporters of the test say that Muslims in general have shown hostility toward gays. Both physical and verbal attacks against gays are a crime in Germany.

The Netherlands is considering a similar test. The proposal was made almost a year ago, but parliament has not yet acted. (story)

---

quote:

---

posted by Hephaestion:
... Critics say that the test is biased and discriminatory because it is applied only to Muslims. They say that if a test is to be given it should be administered to any applicant for citizenship. ...

---

[ 03 January 2006: Message edited by: deBeauxOs ]

Alternately, somebody should apply a can of whup-ass.

quote:

---

I think all political parties in Quebec must say loud and clear that not only do we not want [Sharia] in Quebec, we don't want it in Ontario and we don't want it in Canada. (...)

We must rework the social contract (for immigrants) so that the people - Muslims who want to come to Quebec and who do not respect women's rights or who do not respect whatever rights may be in our Civil Code - stay in their country and not come to Quebec, because that's unacceptable. (...)

On the other hand, if people want to come to Quebec and accept our way of doing things and our rights, in that instance they will be welcome and we will help them integrate.

- Quebec International Relations Minister (and former Immigration Minister!) Monique Gagnon-Tremblay

---

Today such suggestions of Rousseau's are correctly seen as despotic and intolerable, and no one would seriously advocate them... for the native born. But for human beings who happen to have been born on the other side of an imaginary line, all bets seem to be off. Ideological purity tests, loyalty oaths, offshore processing centers (internment camps), etc. The basest and most tyrannical cruelties, which polite society will no longer coutenance against "citizens like us," are therefore concentrated and visited upon those with the misfortune of having been born in a place "we" don't like. Who, oh yeah, also tend, entirely coincidentally of course, to have a different skin color and religion than "we" do.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carter:
Oh, those wacky Europeans! Something that fucked up could never happen here in tolerant North America, right?

I think it's obvious to everyone that the Baden-Württemberg law is nothing more than a pure and visceral expression of racism and tyranny. But some people seem to think that if these tests were extended to - nudge nudge, wink wink - apply to all immigrants rather than just Muslims, they would then magically become OK. I strongly disagree.

---

But, What if that "test" were to be applied to ALL? Then even so-called native born folks with crappy attitudes would be on the line (true they COULD lie, but their long-term reactions to things would prove or disprove their true feelings)

And more seriously, how is Sharia law to be kept out of the Western world?
Do you really want a law that actually says beating your wife/kid using the "rule of thumb" is fine? (Rule of thumb means you can strike them with ANYTHING, as long as it is no wider or thicker that your thumb) That rule of thumb thing is a slippery slope, a rod of steel, a thin leather whip, a stick ... think about it.

Anyone that ascribes to a law that permits women and chjildren to be abused in such a manner is really not consistent with "normal" values. Women's rights are not supported either.

I actually know of a case where the woman is beaten daily - but says nothing because she SPEAKS NO ENGLISH, and is unaware that she can get help. The bruises are well hidden beneath her traditional clothing. Her husband has forbidden her to learn English and unless she lays a complaint, nothing can be done. the community closes ranks and won't "rat" on her abuser because he is a religious leader in their community.

Is that the sort of scenario we want happening?\

Those endorsing Sharia Law are careful to emphasise only the the "reasonable" parts and most people haven't taken time to actually study the whole thing.

The Germans may well have ulterior motives for their screening, but if it helps to protect women and children from abuse ... then it's a good thing.

Actually, the policing of thought is tyrannical. I see some purpose in offering immigrants opportunities to educate themselves about their new communities - if that's the spirit in which citizenship classes are undertaken, then that should work for all sides.

But poking about in people's belief-systems bothers me, and besides, it's impractical. We can't ever truly know what people are thinking, nor do we need to, mostly.

Of course such a litmus test must not be restricted to one ethnic or religious group such as Muslim or Middle Eastern immigrants. In the specific case of Germany, we've observed and commented here on harsh anti-gay repression in neighbouring Poland, a major source of (invisible, white, European) immigrants to Germany.

quote:

---

Namely, why do the people who support such purity tests do so only for immigrants rather than extending it to the native born?

---

You could also ask why people who support citizenship tests on historical knowledge do so for immigrants but not the native born. If a native born Canadian doesn't know any of the answers on the citizenship test, he's still a citizen. But if an immigrant doesn't know the answers, it might very well prevent him from becoming a citizen.

A government(as far as I know) can't forcibly "de-citizenize" its citizens. But it can prevent non-citizens from becoming citizens(all governments do this, I think). Re: the "gay tolerance" test, I agree, it does strike me as a bit like thought control. I'd prefer that they just swear an oath promising to obey the law, which would then preculde them from beating women or harassing homosexuals.

[ 03 January 2006: Message edited by: voice of the damned ]

Thus, immigrants to the US who become citizens end up knowing more about the structure of government etc. than the natives. Those from the US that seek to emigrate to Canada (for example) have all sorts of hoops to jump through before getting in the door, presumably to keep out the USian riff-raff.

It's true that the notion of applying tests (of whatever sort) to people who are already citizens of a country-- native-born or naturalized-- sounds fair at first hearing, but it would tend to allow the state to use such tests to challenge already-established citizenship.

Who would be most likely to face those challenges? To me, it seems likely that the burden would fall on new citizens of unpopular origin (foreign-born POCs, for a start) and native-born folks who are in opposition to government policies.

quote:

---

the state of Baden-Württemberg is requiring that Muslims applying to become German citizens take a cultural test to determine if they "are suitable".

The test will seek their views on homosexuality and other issues such as bigamy and women's rights. The exam will be on top of a federal test . . .

State officials said that the test will gauge an applicants "loyalty to German values".

Other German states have indicated they are looking at similar tests.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lagatta:
newcomers to any society have to agree to certain ground rules of social intercourse - a "social contract"

---

But this fundamentally tyrannical notion has unfortunately survived with regard to immigrants, even though it leads to precisely the same abuses. This is because there is still a stubborn and widespread, but fundamentally very wrong, belief that it's legitimate for the government to pick and choose who will be allowed the privilege of crossing from one side of an imaginary line to another. So immigrants have to suffer abuses and indignities that citizens are not subjected to, just because they were born in a different "country."

There are many reasons that people still accept this unjust treatment of non-citizens, but one of them is undoubtedly that immigrants tend largely to have a different skin color, culture, and religion than "we" do. So, while a law like the one in question which applies to Muslim but not non-Muslim immigrants is obviously and very crudely racist, extending it to apply to all immigrants would not really make it any less racist. For one thing, it would still apply only to immigrants (who are disproportionately non-white) and not to citizens (who are disproportionately white). And for another thing, the test would still be designed specifically to detect the reactionary opinions which are most common among Muslims, rather than the reactionary opinions which are most common among non-Muslims (of which there is no shortage). A minimum height requirement applied to Asian but not European immigrants is vulgar racism; but a minimum height requirement applied both to Asian and European immigrants equally is sophisticated racism.

quote:

---

[a "social contract"] - promising to fight racism and discrimination against them, but also ensuring that they acknowledge that equality for other groups including women and gay and lesbian people are equally worthy of respect.

---

You seem to want to enforce only the good clauses of this "contract," and forget about the bad ones. That's great, except that you won't be the one doing the enforcing: The government will. Why do you trust it so much?

quote:

---

However we must not refuse to acknowledge that there have been violent homophobic acts by members of ghettoised immigrant communities in many European countries

---

But this consensus unfortunately does not yet extend to artificial population suppression through border controls. So whenever crimes are committed by immigrants (be they homophobic attacks in Holland, shootings in Toronto, or car-burnings in Paris), the first solution that pops into most people's heads is instituting more restrictions on immigration. This is very unfortunate, and it really doesn't make any sense.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carter:
But why should that apply only to newcomers who arrive via immigration, and not to those who arrive via birth?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by skdadl:
[QB
If members of some closed communities are being oppressed by their own people, we have to figure out ways to deal with that - usually, I should think, by looking to progressive leaders within communities. We have had experience of interfering disastrously badly in closed immigrant communities in Canada - think of the Sons of Freedom Doukhobors, eg.[/QB]

---

So, Skdadl, what ARE we to do to help bring an end to this type of situation?

We seem to have painted ourselves into a corner where we can't do anything about domestic abuse, unless the victim lays a complaint. If the victim can't speak English, and doesn't know she CAN lay a complaint, and further is afraid to do so (even if she DOES know she can lay a complaint) This is particularly awful in the case of these Muslim women because it seems to me that having come to a democratic country, where we DO have rights, it seems obcene that these women are being abused under our very noses.....

Surely we should be able to let newcomers clearly understand that when in Canada, you have to abide by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as well as obeying the law of the land ... and that should you fail to do so, out the door you go.

quote:

---

newcomers to any society have to agree to certain ground rules of social intercourse - a "social contract"

---

The Baden policy is directed towards those who are seeking German citizenship, not people trying to get the right to live in Germany.

Citizenship involves certain rights, such as the right to vote. It is inconcievable to me that the right to vote should depend upon one's views about homosexuals, or indeed, any other question beyond allegiance to the new country.

The more I learn about such groups, the more I wonder at our first reactions to hearing of the issues: we always start off by assuming that things must be fixed! right now! and WE are the fixers!

I dunno. I think middle-class North Americans have a flawed history of blundering in in ignorance and making troubled situations worse.

quote:

---

posted by Ninja Dragon Slayer: ... Can you point me to a link regarding the Sons of Freedom Doukhobors? I would be interested in doing some further study.

---

There's nothing wrong in setting criteria for new citizens (including birth, which in most places, including Germany, does not entitle you to citizenship). But there is something wrong with any enquiry with legal consequences into a person's beliefs...it's not just objectionable in principle (ie some principles), it plain won't work. For crying out loud, people throw themselves on barbed-wire fences trying to get into Europe, even to live as illegals; you think they won't learn in a flash what you're supposed to answer on these tests?

Which the Germans must know as well as I. So this measure, aimed only at Muslims, stands pretty clear as part of the gathering reaction against Islam as such. Understandable, but, like any belief-based policy, persecuting Islam will backfire too. Not least, it divides progressive people...as it has right here. Which is why we see it in Baden before Holland, I guess.

quote:

---

We seem to have painted ourselves into a corner where we can't do anything about domestic abuse, unless the victim lays a complaint.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by skdadl:
Ninja, I think you may be despairing unnecessarily.

---

I sure hope you're right!

quote:

---

....., I've soon enough also heard of groups of activists within communities who obviously know a lot better than I do how to monitor for and educate against abuses. There are organizations of Muslim women who have made strong presentations to Marion Boyd and the Ontario government on the implementation of sharia law

---

This is good and hopefully these lobby groups will make some headway. But I still think that people who decide to live in a country should be abiding by it's laws, and as far as I understand wife and child abuse is still against the law here.

quote:

---

The more I learn about such groups, the more I wonder at our first reactions to hearing of the issues: we always start off by assuming that things must be fixed! right now! and WE are the fixers!

I dunno. I think middle-class North Americans have a flawed history of blundering in in ignorance and making troubled situations worse.

---

I agree with you here. We DO seem to be adept at meddling - but I see a vast difference between preventing physical abuse and mutilation, and misguded efforts to force kids away from their familes. (I am not trying to trivilalize this....)

quote:

---

You ask about the Sons of Freedom Doukhobors. .....

---

quote:

---

This is because there is still a stubborn and widespread, but fundamentally very wrong, belief that it's legitimate for the government to pick and choose who will be allowed the privilege of crossing from one side of an imaginary line to another. So immigrants have to suffer abuses and indignities that citizens are not subjected to, just because they were born in a different "country."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by voice of the damned:

Imaginary lines? Does that mean that, in the event of the US reinstating the draft, Canadians can be drafted into the US army? After all, why should the US government's jurisdiction stop at the border, if the border is just an imaginary line?

---

quote:

---

(Berlin) Muslim groups are demanding that the state of Baden-Württemberg stop forcing immigrants from Islamic countries to take a 30-topic test that includes questions about gays and lesbians.

[...]

"This test amounts to Islamophobia and discrimination on the basis of religion,” said Professor Faruk Sen, head of the German-based Center for Studies on Turkey (TAM), in a telephone interview with the Turkish Daily News.

---