Site Presented By
Saturday, Nov 7, 2009
It's always amusing when a woman describes some relic of oppression as her own choice. American (and probably French) women do that all the time and then add, "and isn't feminism about choice?" It's very amusing.
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!
It seems in this case that the husband was born a French citizen so there is no way for the government to deny his application. But I will offer to supply a possible reasoning in a similar case but this time the husband is not a citizen. I would first say that he would probably not receive citizenship in that situation. The reason for her not to get citizenship in this situation is basically the same as in the story. It might be outside forces that are making a women wear the "bee keeper suit" (and i use that term with all the disrespect possible) but by keeping her from getting citizenship it might send a message to these outside forces that if they want the wife to be a French citizen she must be allowed to be at least worth most of a man than none of a man. It might seem harsh and I would agree but with out the women coming forward and asking for help or asylum there is not alot that the government can do.
She didn't know she could vote, but she "chose" to wear the niqab?
Sure, right, I believe that.
She'd fail her citizenship application in the States, too. I mean c'mon, if you don't even know about suffrage. It wasn't just about the niqab. Sounds like she was kept in ignorance on many levels. Even a victim of systemic psychological abuse and control may be allowed to drive to the supermarket and back, so I'm not convinced by those details. The human mind is a funny thing, and it's scary how easy it is enslaved.
Who held back all this information anyway? Probably the same men--in her family or community--who put the black tent over her head in the first place.
women sticking up for their own oppression--gotta love 'em.
Suppose a woman stated that she wanted to have her clitoris removed, and when told that no physician would perform the act, insisted that it was her choice.
Suppose she were raped, and then asked her that her husband or father or brothers be allowed to kill her to preserve the family honor.
Suppose a black person asked to be whipped for disobedience to an employer.
Suppose an American Indian asked to be given a smallpox-infested blanket.
Suppose a Jew asked to be gassed.
Etc. In every one of these cases, any civilized society would of course say not only no, but hell no. Some acts are simply repugnant, and no amount of respect for the principle of freedom of choice will allow them. Does wearing the niqab fall into that category? I really don't know. It's clearly less severe than any of the above, but it's still clearly a big deal to a lot of people.
I'd look at her mother, mother-in-law, sisters, and aunts first. They're far more likely to have influenced her "choice". Again, think about American women and who really influences the "choices" the majority just happen to make. The husband is usually a deer-in-the-headlights compared with the overwhelming tsunami of pressure a woman gets from her (and his) women relatives.
It is disingenuous to examine this case as though it is an anomaly, existing in a vacuum. Of course this case is about more; the increasing number and influence of serious, conservative muslims in France. It's easy to scoff at the french citizens, who see their society changing decade by decade, and becoming less familiar.
Tolerance education! Multiculturalism! Diversity! Progress!
Is it really progress to accept people who live by a seventh century code (actually even more hideous, the burqa is nowhere mentioned in the Koran)? Who cannot even accept the existence of certain types of people (atheists, pagans, homosexuals)? Who see Christians and Jews as only dhimmi, or worse, slaves?
In a vacuum, this case is unfair to a prospective french citizen. In this world, the one we live in, it is an attempt by a small segment of a two thousand year old culture to preserve itself.
It's nice to see a country actually using rational tests for citizenship.
And for those who say it's a double standard for the husband or what about French citizens who radicalize, you are missing the point. You can't strip citizenship away; otherwise it would have little value and most people would be stateless and without rights. The permanence of citizenship is all the more reason to be careful about who it is granted to.
Someone who has no concept of French values and civil society or human rights is not prepared to contribute to a free and somewhat more enlightened society. France has a right to defend itself from backwards and totalitarian regimes.
To be fair, they ought to keep out the fundy Christians too. But I am willing to bet France would not have a double standard when it comes to FLDS or Scientologist weirdos. They probably wouldn't get citizenship either.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The Maine fight was supposed to be the dress rehearsal for repealing California's Prop. 8 -- but gay marriage lost
Once one obtains Seriousness credentials in the Washington media, they are irrevocable no matter one's conduct.
Salon headlines in your mailbox
