"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.

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?

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 ...

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.

...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?

'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.