- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
if i remember correctly, the judge informed the applicant that she was not sufficiently assimilated because she was in total and complete submission to her male relatives. additionally, Amara said she hoped the ruling would "dissuade certain fanatics from imposing the burqa on their wives."
let's say for a moment that it's true that women in the niqab are not choosing to wear it, and that they are, indeed, being forced to by their husbands and fathers. if this is the case, why punish the women? why isn't the applicant's HUSBAND who is being denied citizenship for insufficient assimilation since he is apparently the one forcing his wife to wear the damn thing? why aren't men who "require" their wives to wear niqab or burqa the ones being punished?
even if we decide to accept the French point of view that women are being forced to dress in this manner (and this is, of course, not necessarily the case) it STILL makes no sense to punish women for being forced into what Amara herself called "a prison... a straitjacket...[and] the insignia of a totalitarian political project that advocates inequality between the sexes."
good work france! way to punish the victims of inequality!
