Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
So she doesn't know she can vote, and is in "complete submission" to her male relatives, as the original artical says, not Salon's abbreviated version. Good for France in denying her citizenship. Why does she even want it anyway, sounds like she is no more than cattle to her family. It isn't the veil, it's her, and her culture/religon, denial of her own humanity. If governments sanction this sort of cultural oppression, then, how can they make other oppressive behavior illegal, such as female genital mutilation? After all, that could be considered the free choice of the parents for religious reasons.
The root problem is that these Muslims get into Western countries and breed, however. Democratic countries allow the majority to make the rules, and eventually, France, like other nations, will become a Muslim state. I bet within 50 years people like this woman, basically a doormat, will be the norm there.
I'm not French, but that's my impression what France wants to be: a secular society. There is religious freedom, but you are not supposed to impose your religion on others. The French want citizens who take their civic duties seriously who vote and participate in the political process. So if you apply to become a citizen they want to know if you are willing to contribute, if you are willing to stand for the ideals of their republic.
I think looking at it from this perspective it becomes clear why they wouldn't want this woman to become a citizen. Citizenship would be an advantage for her, but it would be a burden for the rest of society.
France allows someone to move to and live within its borders for a decade and produce 4 undisputably French children. Then, it takes issue with the individual's religious practices. It's almost like the government is trying to prove something. Logical thinking however is not one of the possible choices.
France has the right to impose rules on who can become a citizen. That's perfectly fair. However, I hope that these rules don't merely serve to forward a political agenda. French citizenship rules should ideally reflect the values and spirit of the French constitution.
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.
I have a relative who teaches in France. He teaches English. English is his native tongue. He was initially denied certification because the French officials determined his English was not good enough. By that they meant it wasn't French enough. It is always more important to be French than it is to be something else, in France. Of course here in the good old retarded USoA they would deny her citizenship too, but for 'security' reasons of her refusal to be photographed, fingerprinted, biometricized w/o her niqab.
'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.
...that would be a good reason to deny citizenship AT THIS TIME. But once she became aware of the rights and responsibilities of French citizens, she should be allowed to re-apply.
But to deny citizenship for wearing the niquab? If it's her husband/other male relatives forcing her to do so, why punish the victim? If it is truly her choice, let her. What someone else wears for religious reasons is none of my business, however much I may disagree with it.
Does France deny citizenship to Hasidic Jews, who in accordance with their religious beliefs wear very distinctive clothing and have distinct roles for men and women?
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.
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 survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
