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.

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.

If there were a country where the prevailing practice was for women to run around naked, and a woman from America tried to become a citizen, and was denied on the grounds that she insists on covering up her breasts and genitals, we would be outraged.

The veil is a *terrible* metaphor for women's submission, because if you were raised in Muslim culture, you may literally feel as if you're naked without it. I would not want to wear a micro-bikini to the grocery store or bicycle down the street in the nude; why do we expect a Muslim woman to be necessarily comfortable with exposing her face to strangers when she's been raised to feel that that is nakedness?

If she doesn't know what voting is, then France may have a point; no one should become a citizen of a democracy without being able to pass a citizenship test proving they understand how democracy works. But the veil shouldn't have anything to do with it.

'In a vacuum, this case is unfair to a prospective french citizen...'

I'd go as far as to say that, irrespective of a sociocultural vaccuum, the State--and the polity it represents--have every right to be as stringent with prospective citizens as it deems necessary. The French attitude in this respect acknowledges a desire to preserve a 'French' civic culture: one in which the population knows its rights--and duties--and who can exercise them accordingly. That attitude, I think, is rather admirable enough, and perhaps goes a long way in explaining the large proportion of the eligible population who regularly vote. (85% during the presidential election last year, compared to 61.3% in the UK parliamentary elections in 2005 and 60.7% in the US during the presidential elections in 2004, the latter of which was a 36-year high.)

Let's also not forget that France's general mistrust of radical religious belief--implicit in its constitutionally strict separation of church and state, i.e. Laïcité--was established in reaction to Christianity. But in a country that has faced a sustained terrorist threat from fundamentalist followers of Islam for many years prior to 11 September 2001, with the added caveat of a large (minority) Muslim population, the application of laïcité has become more controversial.

Let's also not forget that the woman in question began wearing the niqab upon emmigrating to France. The niqab is an alienating garb to one's peers. The decision to wear such vestiment exclusively upon moving to France, whilst pretending to be 'integrated' into wider society, is reason enough to arouse suspicion.

France's famous "laïcité" has been transformed from a solution for social peace after the anticlerical struggles of the late-19th and early 20th centuries to become an arm against Muslims. "Laïcité" is only used against Muslims. The law against schoolgirls wearing veils was framed in terms of "visible signs of religion", but Catholic boys and girls can continue to wear crosses around their necks.

No fundamentalist Catholic, a religion just as sexist as some forms of Islam, would ever be denied nationality based on her religious beliefs. This is just one more example of French hypocrisy as to its so-called "secular" values.