Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Is the naqib inconsistent with French values? Of course it is, and so much the worse for French values.
I much prefer American values when it comes to freedom of religion. In the US it's assumed that a person has a right to wear what she chooses, and even the question whether she's chosen freely is regarded as a private matter. In the US so far the state hasn't taken on the psychological analysis of husband-wife relations.
In France freedom of religion means an attempt by the state to restrict religious garb and religious expression across the board, and the state has done its job when it places its boot equally upon the adherents of all religions. The practice originated in the French Revolution, when the Catholic Church's political power was seen as a threat to liberty, equality, freedom.
In practice, the restrictions are hardly equal, as several respondents mention. The rabbi or Buddhist monk won't find his garb a barrier to citizenship. The wife forced to assume domestic tasks by her wealthy white secular husband will be welcomed as a citizen. So will the daughter whose parents keep her from wearing makeup and going to movies. So will the son whose parents forbid a religious vocation. No one in France seriously proposes to limit citizenship in every case of domestic tyranny - only in those cases where the prospective citizen is sufficiently unlike the typical bovine citoyen or citoyenne to awaken fright.
So the question really must be raised - just what are "French values"?
If we look closely, what we actually observe is the state restricting [a] women, [b] people of color, [c] people who are poor, [d] people who are powerless, and [e] people whose religion is important to them.
If that's all that's going on, it's quite in line with traditional French practice. Anatole France said years ago that "The Law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich, as well as the poor, to sleep under the bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread." The Dreyfus case is alive and well.
Those tired buzz words became inaccurate expressions of French values long before the French state convicted Alfred Dreyfus of the crime of a Jewish background and sentenced him to the punishment appropriate to treason. When the state tells people what they can wear it's not liberty. When the state imposes this only upon women it's not equality. What we have left is simply fraternity, which means roughly all of us wealthy, white, secular, politically empowered males banding together, as males, to tell less privileged people how to live their lives.
Women are also allowed to become honorary fraternity members, if they agree to mask their restrictions of other women as defenses of those same women against the restrictions imposed by their husbands. Thus it is that French feminists, firmly rooted in the clouds of French feminist theory and liberated from real acquaintance with real Muslim women, are complicit in their oppression. Plus ca change ...
I think it all depends on what this woman actually says, and on who she is. I didn't see much in the article that this woman actually said; everything seems to be opinions by the reporters. Who is she, and why did she decide to wear the niqab? Is it possible, as alarajrogers suggested, that she would feel 'naked' without the veil? How much does she know about France, and why is she asking for citizenship? What is her story?
"Some" say because she wears the niqab.
Read the article again. She was not denied citizenship because of what she wears or what religion she chooses to practice.
It may be her right to dress and do as she chooses, or perhaps as she has been subtly trained to choose; but it is an earned privilege to become a citizen of a particular country.
This woman decided, upon moving to France, to behave in a clearly non-French fashion. She went out of her way to set herself apart from the French, and does not participate in French society in any meaningful way.
They aren't deporting her, only acknowledging the fact that she just isn't French.
to apply for citizenship means that you have every intention of abiding by that country's laws, first and foremost. This isn't about a veil. This isn't just about France. This is about abiding by laws and understanding that you cannot ask an entire country to overlook your law-breaking even for religious purposes.
Countries have every right to refuse citizenship to people whose values, religious practices, or other cultural differences will not assimilate into their countries. And if those values, religious practices, and other cultural differences mean the person is entitled to break the law, then no, they should be denied citizenship.
Citizenship is not an automatic right. It is a priviledge of a country. And those who are radically different from the country in which they want to be citizens need to understand it's nothing personal.
American should not have to take every person who wants to be a citizen either. It's not a right. And we should change our laws to that state that if you are here illegally and you have a child, that child is NOT AUTOMATICALLY A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES and has no automatic benefits for health, education, or anything else.
It is a bit of a paradox, but multiculturalism and freedom are, in many cases, incompatible. So far, we have been able to balnce religious wackos and democracy in the US, mainly because we have had lots of space. But really, how can you believe in freedom if that freedom includes religions that deprive their asherants of freedom?
vossssov: I think your comment is utterly wrong. Citizenship in any country is a privilege, not a right. To be given that privilege you must fulfill certain conditions. In the US, you must have a cursory understanding of US history, civics, and politics. Basically you have to prove your Americanness in a way that's compatible with what we as Americans think of ourselves. Same thing goes for the French. They are not discriminating against sex, religion, or race, but are affirming the woman's unFrenchness - which she herself preserved. Why bestow the privilege of French citizenship on someone who does not want to embrace French culture and did not make an effort to understand French values? Basically she didn't want to be French, she just wanted the French citizenship.
The victim argument doesn't hold water either. She doesn't claim injury in any of her fillings. For the Court to assume that her psyche was somehow hurt by her own cultural practices would be nothing short of prejudiced. It would basically criminalize her cultural background.
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"
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Salon headlines in your mailbox
