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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.