Harry's Place

I am not sure this is compatible with French republican precedent. The Republic’s first principle with regard to Jews was to grant them all rights as a religious group, none as a national group, with the understanding that, in time, they would assimilate into the wider body of the state.

The woman may well live as total recluse, but by denying her rights as a citizen, surely that makes her less, not more, likely to escape those bonds, let alone assimilate.

But surely the term ‘recluse’ is relative. In another situation she might simply be a very shy housewife.

This is a very interesting case. I suspect that most people who wear the burqa believe they are doing so of their own ‘free will’ and in the parameters of their social and intellectual worldview I’m sure it is a pretty rational choice. The lady in this case doesn’t sound like she’s been given the most enlightened education in the world. Yet if she had been given a secular education and upbringing I doubt that she would choose to wear a burqa. You don’t see many PHD students wearing a burqa do you?

As for the immigration decision I’m sure it will be very controversial; however many countires base their immigration policies on what benefits an immigrant may bring to society; for example they may need to be highly educated or highly skilled. By the same principle I guess countries should be allowed to judge what benefits an immigrant may bring to their society. It is the perogative of any Government to deny citizenship to immigrants if they feel they will not contribute to sciety.

Wearing a Burqa, IMHO, is not that unlike wearing a hoody, or getting piercings and tatoos. It is a statement of difference, non-conformity and possibly, yes, reclusiveness. But, unless these things are crimes, which they are not, there is no reason to deny someone citizenship on this basis. There are many many people who don’t believe in equality of the sexes – from drunken wife beaters to old fashioned bigots. Again, we condemn these people, but don’t deny them citizenship, and again choosing to be submissive is different from being forced to be submissive (remember it is the woman being punished – not any potential male relative). And do I need to mention that many many people don’t believe in a secular state. So, unless you want to make these three criteria for refusing citizenship, and apply them evenly, this appears to be a form a discrimination.

Bravo France!

Now you should put the icing on the cake and deport the entire family.

On what grounds, Morgoth, other than that they are Muslims?

Here in the USA, lots of folks have no knowledge of, or interest in, the country’s history and political traditions. But we don’t kick out our college students. As for women who “live almost as a recluse, isolated from..society” see Citizen Brittney Spears or The Housewives of Orange County.

This is the same question my Romanian builder, who is busy assimilating himself and his family as fast as he can, asked me only last week after watching a tv show about Shabena Begum, the British Muslim girl who took her school to court for not allowing her to wear the full hiljab to school.

Interesting that refusal of citizenship in France should hinge on the would-be citizen’ religious views being incompatible with the French requirement for would-be citizens to assimilate.

Why be a citizen of a country that you have no interest or knowledge of, but in fact live in complete alienation to?

—

Maybe because Morocco used to be a French colony? Who knows, if it hadn’t been bled dry by the colonists over 100 years, people would not be forced to leave Morocco today for economic reasons. I hesitate to point this out because obviously this website has great difficulty seeing things other than from the colonist’s viewpoint.

“this appears to be a form a discrimination.”

A state is perfectly free to choose who it grants citizenship to. It can discriminate on grounds of education, skill levels, health, work experience, age, wealth, criminal history and character. If Pete Doherty applied for Saudi citizenship he’d be denied on the grounds that he wouldn’t benefit the ideals of the saudi state and Saudi society. I don’t want to comment on this particular case, however if a Government believes that an immigrant’s presence is not beneficial to the ideals of the host society then it has every right to deny citizenship.

Chris P – the State may have that right – whether it should is another question, but lets put that to one side. However, in a civilised society certain transparent and objective criteria should be used to determine whether or not any individual is allowed/disallowed citizenship. I am asking, what, exactly, are these criteria in this case.

“insufficient assimilation”

I’m not French and I don’t know the full details of this case. It’s up to the French to decide what’s best for their country and fair play to them.

It’s their call.

“insufficient assimilation” is legislating the requirement for conformity. By this standard, Goths, Punks and anyone else who doesn’t want to be part of the mainstream should equally be denied citizenship.

Perhaps I should also have said “insufficient assimilation” is exactly what was said of Jews in England 100 years ago in efforts to demonise and deport them.

I agree with the French decision, every country has the right to decide and apply its own criteria for admiting immigrants, although I am also bewildered because it shows the limits and failures of the French assimilacionist model of citizenship and identity.
I can hear the echos of the debates at the French Assembly in 1789, but this time the mood is gloomy. And with good reason.

TheIrie, however, speaks nonsense. A wife-beater will go to jail or will be expelled before getting citizenship. It also not the case that you should remove the citizenship of someone, like Goths and whatnot, only of not adding a second citizenship to someone who already has one.

Gordon’s last paragraph nails it. Westerners in their gated compounds in Saudi aren’t queuing up to become Saudi citizens are they? But if they did then it wouldn’t be to just get the certificate and return to the compound.

Whether you wear a burkha or hunting pink or dress as Darth Vader is not really the issue here.

France has the hghest Muslim population in Europe and it grants citizenship to thousands of Muslim immigrants every year, this case was denied on the basis of this lady’s individual views rather than because she belonged to a particular group or religion. I fail to see the relevance of your point.

You already admitted that every Government has the right to deny citizenship based on the benefits an immigrant brings to the host society. Citizenship is a privilege not a right. If a host country feels that an immigrant does not bring benefits to society then they entirely free an correct to deny citizenship .

TheIrie you are confusing two separate issues :one is , if you are a French citizen under what circumstances can you loose French citizenship ( being a member of Nazi party or Mafia or what ever is not sufficient to loose your citizenship ) but this is different from the question under what circumstances are you entitled to a French citizenship if you are a citizen of another country already and are not a French c. by birth ( in this case being member of Mafia or a criminal organization may be relevant consideration ). Two separate questions and two separate set of criteria may come into play.

“Why be a citizen of a country that you have no interest or knowledge of, but in fact live in complete alienation to?”

Benefits.

Seriously, if I were a Muslim and didn’t want to work, I’d move to London, claim persecution and get benefits. It’s free money rammed down my throat. Not only that, but the native Britons won’t care a whit if I start saying that their country should be more like the country I ‘escaped’ from. In fact, even if I get a bunch of my friends to blow up a train and kill 50+ people, they will defend me, and maybe even give me a bigger house.

Positive reinforcement for negative behavior? Psychologists say that that raises a child with many psychological problems. It also does the same for communities.

Largely agree with Chris P. But the problem is not whether the woman wears the Burqa of her free will, but rather that her desire to be a devout Muslimah may eventually spill over as a desire to impose her norms on the host nation.
A nation has an inalienable right to discriminate in the immigration context even by a standard that would be unthinkable if applied to citizens. The citizenship process is the passport and gatekeeper to permanent membership in the political community, so it sometimes makes sense to judge foreigners by a higher and judgmental standard than citizens.
I suppose that swastika wearing women would also be of a sort a society would have a desire to keep out. Whether the symbol is a voluntary identification, society must necessarily be entitled to draw certain conclusions from an individual’s outward behavior. If a host society is bend on maintaining its value system and evolving in a progressive direction, then it’s perfectly reasonable to keep out men or women who don’t conform to western notions of sex equality, even though not all citizens live by that morality themselves.
Of course, that is what some would call discrimination, but the failure to discriminate is sometimes a less sin than discriminating against evil.

I wrote:
“Of course, that is what some would call discrimination, but the failure to discriminate is sometimes a less sin than discriminating against evil.”

What I meant was “worse” and not “less” sin.

“It is a good question that could equally be asked here. Why be a citizen of a country that you have no interest or knowledge of, but in fact live in complete alienation to?”

As long as you don’t blow people up or have sympathy for those who do, sure.

“Goths, Punks and anyone else who doesn’t want to be part of the mainstream should equally be denied citizenship.”

Goths and punks generally become lawyers by 30.

“Perhaps I should also have said “insufficient assimilation” is exactly what was said of Jews in England 100 years ago in efforts to demonise and deport them.”

Jews have never, ever, threatened their “host countries” with violence. And Judaism is not a proselytizing or supremacist religion while Islam is.

“There are many many people who don’t believe in equality of the sexes – from drunken wife beaters to old fashioned bigots. Again, we condemn these people, but don’t deny them citizenship”

Well, we’re supposed to. People applying to be citizens are supposed to be of good character.

Carola Von Hoffmannstahl-Solomonoff: ‘Here in the USA, lots of folks have no knowledge of, or interest in, the country’s history and political traditions. But we don’t kick out our college students. As for women who “live almost as a recluse, isolated from..society” see Citizen Brittney Spears or The Housewives of Orange County.

This is only true of folks who were born citizens of the USA. If one comes from somewhere else and wishes to become a US citizen, he or she is expected, I believe, not only to be able to display knowledge and interest in the country’s history and political traditions, but also to be attached to, and to be able to support, the principles of the U.S. Constitution and to be able to swear allegiance to the United States.

http://www.visaus.com/citizen.html

If she was totally subserviant to her husband and her husband ensured her isolation from society, then one cannot accuse her of being a radical. She is oppressed and perhaps French citizenship would give her the right to cast off her burqa if she chooses. Without citizenship, she is more likely to be dependent on her husband.

It might be a funny way to put it, but you know it almost seems rude. I invite you into my house and you see in the corner with a bag over your head not talking to anyone and making everyone else feel a little uncomfortable. I’d have to ask if you really felt my place was where you wanted to hangout – as really an interest in scoffing my great dips would really not be a convincing argument to stay (excuse this laboured metaphor it just came out).

It is worth adding that the article does say the woman concerned never wore the burqa in Morocco so has since coming to France become more “radical” and must realise the impact it has in a country like france.

Her situation – permitted to live in France but not be a full citizen – is similar to that of dhimmies (sp?) in a Caliphate.

“Her situation – permitted to live in France but not be a full citizen – is similar to that of dhimmies (sp?) in a Caliphate.”

Well, of course not. She can still ride a horse, wear any color she likes, wear a sash, and have a large sword collection.
She isn’t able to vote. But who voted in the Caliphate?

This is an interesting objection : “Daniele Lochak, a law professor not involved in the case, said it was bizarre to consider that excessive submission to men was a reason not to grant citizenship. “If you follow that to its logical conclusion, it means that women whose partners beat them are also not worthy of being French,” he told Le Monde.”

The argument here seems to be ‘true Faiza M has not assimilated but that is not her fault, she is a victim of a kind of abuse ‘. But the analogy here seems to be a bit tenuous. Faiza M endorses and goes along with her husband’s values –unlike the victims of abuse–and hence the analogy seems misleading. In addition to that, Daniele Lochak is guilty of the error TheIrie has made : not distinguishing between the right to citizenship people who are born in France have ( not easily alienable ) and a mere claim/desire people who are not French citizens and who seek French citizenship.

A Burqa is incompatible with Islamophobes.

And Islamophobes are incompatible with human rights.

I’ll assume you mean, more like to *remain* dependent on her husband, Dan.

Some thoughts which occur. Is there any suggestion she’s to be removed from France; if not, the analogy of repatriating Jews 100 years ago becomes suspect); if so, is there subsequent evidence that she faces persecution to wherever she’d be removed to (as the Jewish immigrants certainly would have)? If she’s to continue receiving the benefits of residing in a stable country, I’m more able to say it’s France’s choice.

Was the husband granted citizenship, or born to it? And, if the courts believe she is being subjugated by her husband, are social services taking an interest?

From the article,

==> “If you follow that to its logical conclusion, it means that women whose partners beat them are also not worthy of being French,”

Unless they’re threatening with pre-existing French citizenship being withdrawn, this is not relevant.

JOHN DOE ==> Maybe because Morocco used to be a French colony?

Actually Morocco was a protectorate from a scant fifty years. You’re getting it mixed up with Algeria.

==> bled dry

Hardly.

Please, can we ignore Flanker?

On what grounds, Morgoth, other than that they are Muslims?

On grounds of the public good, TheIrie.

This is just a cherrypicked news titbit conceived to raise the ire of the anti-burqa brigade.

Burqas, niqabs, khimars, jilbabs and even the erroneously coined ‘hijab’ are all irrelevancies.

The real issue is one of cohesion and citizenship.

If I chose to go around with a large prostetic phallus on my head and a donkey’s tail pinned to my posterior it wouldn’t matter a jot if I was involved in my local parish council, volunteered for the RSPCA and took part in my local school’s Sir Walter Scott literature week.

London is not England. Many people already choose to come and live in the UK not for the ‘culture’ or the ‘people’. No, they come for their future; for a chance to live a reasonable life.

Many English ‘natives’ contribute very little to what could be loosely termed citizenship, but their ancestors were born here and by any stretch of the imagination or by any reading of ‘natural law’ they deserve to be allowed to continue living in this society if they so choose.

Yet, if you choose to live in another country, where there is an established set of cultural norms, then you should be expected to show an understanding of those norms, a tolerance for them…and be expected to embrace them to a certain extent.

One incident sticks in my mind vividly and it took place about 10 years ago now, not far from Euston Station: I had decided to pick up a present for my wife’s sister’s engagement party. Not being a native of North London, and soon to depart in the direction of Manchester, I thought I might pick her up some Bengali sweets. Knowing that there was a substantial Sylheti community in that area, I approached the first Bengali I set eyes upon. This little old man, with his long, bushy beard, big almond eyes and prerequisite shalwar qamiz was a stereotypical Sylheti, so I addressed him in my best Sylhetibhasa. I was taken aback by his response: he stared at me and cursed me for my ‘impertinence’. How dare I ask about Sylheti things…and in Maulvi Bazaari dialect too. He skulked off, with his hands fixed behind him in a characteristic display of Bengali elder disapproval.

What struck me about that incident was its incongruity. Here was a man who, aside from the grim backdrop and English conversations of the passersby could have been living in Sylhet. He resented my knowledge of Bengali customs and language and it challenged him. His concessions to ‘English’ culture were conspicuous by their absence. Indeed, knowing full well the reticence and atavism of many sections of the Bengali community in Tower Hamlets and the deeply entrenched cultural centrism, I had made the concession and had hoped for it to build a bridge between us. Needless to say I was wrong for approaching him in the first place.

The sort of cultural enclaves which permeate many of Western Europe’s major and minor ciites are evidence of a deeply foolish and one-sided social policy. The burqa is an outward sign of cultural rigidity; a symbol of the uber-rejectionism and absolutism that characterises Islam. Whilst I very much doubt the Moroccan woman in question wears a ‘burqa’ as such, despite the news report, whatever she chooses to wear is clearly not conducive to cultural integration or communiy cohesion. These types of clothing are incompatible with life in France or the UK, as is the primitivist Islamic antinomianism of which they are but an outward manifestation.

NB – Nick M…those ‘gated compounds’ weren’t specified by the ex-pats living there.

NB – John Doe…’ Maybe because Morocco used to be a French colony? Who knows, if it hadn’t been bled dry by the colonists over 100 years, people would not be forced to leave Morocco today for economic reasons. I hesitate to point this out because obviously this website has great difficulty seeing things other than from the colonist’s viewpoint.’

If you’re right then why didn’t millions of Europeans emigrate elsewhere or give up after the depridations of the Roman Empire, the Vikings, the Normans, the Goths, the Monguls etc.

Morocco benefitted from French colonialisation considerably. Just witness the ongoing allure of the French language in its cultural institutions, government and intelligentsia…without which Moroccans and othersfrom the Maghreb would have less chance f gaining French citizenship and contributing to French society today.

What about the Shluh and Tamazigh populations of Morocco who were displaced and faced cultural holocaust because of the Muslim Arab invasions? Populations who are still vastly underrepresented in any way shape or form where it conts in modern Morocco?

“Why be a citizen of a country that you have no interest or knowledge of, but in fact live in complete alienation to?”

Because she’s been living there for over 4 years, her husband works there and her children go to school there. Just because she does not want to live in the same lifestyle as a European women does not make her an outlaw. It is indeed very clear the direction Europe is going and this is why a report published by RAND stated that Muslims raised in Europe are studying either Medicine or Engineering (universal subjects that are not linked with a particular country) for the sole purpose of leaving Europe and working elsewhere because of oppression and persecution. I swear I wont be surprised in ten years time you will have new concentration camps for Muslims. Indeed Fascism is a consequence of Capitalism when it feels threatened.

My first time to publish a comment. Maybe my tone is not the best for a first time, but…

Why can’t we face the problem? A Burka it’s not “just a piece of clot”, as a noted feminist once said. There are objective elements to defend that the burka is a tool for reducing the freedom of women who wear it. It eliminates the facial expressions, so reduces the freedom of comunication. Reducing, at the same time, the possibilities of interaction. Add to that the context of that infamous piece of cloth and it’s pretty clear the point.
Yes, everybody has the right to limit himself. But, if you decide that, a nation who values the freedom has the right to deny you a citizenshp.

Hilmi, you were going so well until the last phrase. Then I saw that you have still pimples on your face.

How does this woman threaten Capitalism in France, Elohim!?
For all we know, she could model burkas for his husbands burka factory.
Go back to school and don’t come out until you have read something more than the Complete Idiot’s guide to Karl Marx!

I agree with Zkharya : this is not compatible with the egalitarian conception of citizenship of 1789. Righlty citing the example of the emancipation of the Jews (who in some quarters in Alsace were as ‘communitarianist’ as a Burqua wearing Muslim enclave) the point here is that as a *citizen* one’s religion and its taboos (such as dress codes) are irrelevant. This is the basic principle of secularism. The decision seems to make judgements about which religious customs are compatible with becoming French (legally that is, not culturally) when in fact secular states should not be making any ruling at all on them *as religions*. It is precisely because a faith-blind practice should prevail in the *public sphere* that, by contrast ostentatious religious symbols should be banned from education, as a formation in egalitarian citizenship, to encourage individual autonomy, until the university/grandes ecoles/college stage (where choice has some meaning). At least as this is being reported (the Le Monde editorial and report is balanced but I can guess which British papers will not be) it is a gift for the enemies of the French republic and secular freedom. Our very own Islamophiles must be drooling with joy.

That said, there may be other factors in this case, since naturalisation requires that one shows some willingness to adapt to a society, and in the UK and elsewhere, things such as oaths of loyalty. As far as I am aware she is not threatened with deportation.

The true precedent to this judgement can be found in the last paragraphs of Rousseau’s Social Contract. That is on excluding certain types of believer from citizenship. Rousseau argues that there should be religious liberty in his ideal republic. But that anyone who claims an exclusive truth, and says that theirs in the only way to salvation should be either driven from the republic or put to death.

Appealing in some ways as this is, it’s not a good precedent, eh?

Hilmi, that’s an extended period over which she could have investigated French culture and civic pride. But didn’t.

Once more, she ain’t being removed.

she does not want to live in the same lifestyle as European a woman

I know lots of European/ized women who keep their knickers on. It ain’t total subserviance to menfolk and abjuring from society, or harlotry. Will she join al-qaida if she doesn’t get citizenship?

The burqa is the 21st century’s swastika armband.

Society’s are not just about freedoms, they are about responsibilities. If this woman rejects the values of the society, why should she be granted citizenship? Just because “she lives there”? Then it’s not a society, it’s just a piece of ground. The sad thing is the West has become so remiss – if not complacent – in defending its values. It’s a shame this sort of thing does not happen much more often.

And for the Islamists sparring here – would someone who rejected your perfect society by refusing to submit to its values be granted citizenship? I very much doubt it. So stop stirring Hilmi!

Yes, the French are right; the UK should have done the same thing years ago:

http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_direct_link.cfm/blog_id/15848

Excellent news.

The French judiciary has much more sence than ours!

As Bloo says, citizenship is more than just a recognition of residency, it is membership of a community with a particular history and values. We have lost sight of this in Britain, as the Islamists are well aware.

Andrew and Zkharya, French Jews received equality. Not Lithuanian Jews.

This woman was not born in France, but a country decades after French rule ended. Her children will have received citizenship.

“this is not compatible with the egalitarian conception of citizenship of 1789. Righlty citing the example of the emancipation of
the Jews (who in some quarters in Alsace were as ‘communitarianist’ as a Burqua wearing Muslim enclave) the point here is that as a *citizen* one’s religion
and its taboos (such as dress codes) are irrelevant. This is the basic principle of secularism.”
Not at all, secularism doesn’t shield certain conduct from government scrutiny just because it is done for religious reasons.
You can hold the view or live a life signaling that women aren’t equal to men, and that is going to be a factor in the good character judgment whether or not your conduct is motivated by social, ideological or religious animus.
A certain dress code or lifestyle may therefore be incompatible with citizenship, not because it’s religious but rather because it’s contrary to equality. The state is not inquiring or interfering into the theological realm but only into the alien’s secular views regardless of whether these views are grounded in religious justifications.

Surely the underlying point is that this woman’s dress and her relationship within her family, is contrary to the basic way in which the French state expects its citizens to behave. France is constitutionally a secular state and committed to equality of the sexes indeed of all citizens of the republic, not just some (ie the men).

Anyone wearing a burqua and remaining at home “in complete submission” to the men in her family is either someone who has completely rejected the values of secular France or someone who is being exploited by the men in her family. Let us assume it is the first.

Posters here who suggest that Islam is an entirely personal thing are being disingenuous. Devout Muslims who expect their women to live in some sort of purdah, regard themselves as morally superior to the rest of us and their religion as the only true path. I assume they hope maybe even anticipate that one day France will become a Muslim state.

If someone who repudiates the secular values of the French republic so completely, seeks to become a French citizen, then it seems to me entirely reasonable that the French state can reject them. This is of course quite different from stripping their citizenship from someone who is already a citizen.

Incidentally has anyone heard that the Americans are now creating some difficulty over admitting British citizens and others whose travel documents show they were in fact born in America. Has anyone come across this?

This seems to be a motif in current European affairs. Countries like France and England swing often wildly, and even absurdly between the extremes of accommodating to the point of dhimmitude the Muslim minorities (turning beds to Mecca; forbidding piggy banks, Muslim men only swimming hours; pretending that “youth” violence is just the violence of youths, when they are all Muslims) and forbidding Muslim clothing; requiring immigrants to watch scenes of naked people on beaches, and so forth. The problem it seems to me is that Europe is not happy with admitting so many people who have no stake in Europe, but doesn’t know what to do about it. Make life miserable for them or subjugate European culture to Islamic culture?

Of course the men who keep her locked up would have no trouble becoming citizens since they mix fairly freely.

So it’s only the woman who gets victimized twice, once by the men of her culture (and their convenient religion which makes them masters and her the slave) and then again by France which won’t allow her in.

Also, antish, wonderful comment.

What Morgoth said. There should be no Burqas in this continent or in this century. I shouldn’t even have heard of the word. Vive la France.

“So it’s only the woman who gets victimized twice, once by the men of her culture (and their convenient religion which makes them masters and her the slave)
and then again by France which won’t allow her in.”
Truly devout and reclusive Muslim Women may be good breeding machines, but their contribution to society is at best doubtful. There is a good reason for keeping them out. A woman may breed an indefinite number of jihadis, whereas a man is hopefully only blowing himself up. So even accepting the implicit argument that this treatment amounts to double punishment, it’s actually very sound.

Please, can we ignore Flanker?

Excellent idea.

“So it’s only the woman who gets victimized twice”

Citizenship is a privilege, not a right.
She is not victimized, then.

However their male relatives -assuming they came from abroad- were unjustly awarded the honor of being French citizens.

“and then again by France which won’t allow her in.”

And again, she lives already in France and will not be expelled.

It is not France that victimizes her, only her male relatives.
Unless you think that a German foreign worker in France is being victimized if his application for citizenship is rejected.
He will always have Germany.

Andrew Coates: “Righlty citing the example of the emancipation of the Jews (who in some quarters in Alsace were as ‘communitarianist’ as a Burqua wearing Muslim enclave) the point here is that as a *citizen* one’s religion and its taboos (such as dress codes) are irrelevant. This is the basic principle of secularism.”

This observation does not really apply in this case because the person in question is not a French citizen ( so has not yet earned as it were the right to be treated such that her religion is ignored in the public sphere ). But secondly, what is being overlooked is that the secular principle that is being invoked ( “ignore religion in your treatment of citizens” ) is anyway motivated by the assumption that Faiza M could become a citizen in more than just a formal sense and that is precisely what is doubtful. That is , it is doubtful that she could become a citizen where this means endorsing the values that underpin the notion of citizenship and this is established by the secular principle itself. She is disqualified then not because of her religion but because of the fact that she could not be imagined to become a citizen in a full blown sense ( where this means endorsing the values of secular citizenship ). Her religion then is not directly at issue when she is denied citizenship.

I see that you are now deleting John Doe’s posts. What a bunch of insecure rightwing wankers you are.

“There should be no Burqas in this continent or in this century.”

Do you realise how much like Mary Whitehouse you sound? If you make rules, someone’s going to want to break them. Hell, if you outlaw the burqa, I’ll be the first to start wearing one. I repeat, for many Muslim women, the Burqa is the leather jacket of the 50’s, the saftey pin in the ear of the 70’s, the hoodie, the tattoo, the two fingers up at authority.

Some interesting reasons for wearing a Burqa here:

http://observantbystander.wordpress.com/2007/10/14/why-i-wear-a-burqa/

Reason #4: Underwear is optional. OK, not that it isn’t already optional, but with a burqa you can let it all hang out. And by just lifting it off the ground a few inches, one can allow the cooling and refreshing breezes to journey up the burqa to your special nether regions. Good times.

Which posts were that, Mary? Honest question, like, ‘cos I’ve seen only one and it’s still there.

Phill: The burqa is the 21st century’s swastika armband.

Just so, and just as offensive – the burqua is a reliable flag for strong mainstream Islamic views, which it is not hyperbole to describe as fascist; it’s really that simple.

Indeed, at Heathrow airport I had exactly that thought a couple of weeks back whilst leaving the UK via Terminal 5, as one of the uniformed search team operating the x-ray machine was wearing an Islamic scull cap. To my mind he might as well have been wearing an AWB triple 7 armband or a Nazi swastika.

Completely inappropriate, why we allow this shit beats me.

“turning beds to Mecca; forbidding piggy banks, Muslim men only swimming hours; pretending that “youth” violence is just the violence of youths, when they are all Muslims)”

What utter crap. Every single one of these stories has been discredited.

I see that you are now deleting John Doe’s posts. What a bunch of insecure rightwing wankers you are.

Wasn’t me, but I notice that Ms. Smith has the same IP address as Mr. Doe. It might help if they chose more convincing aliases.

Who’s authority TheIrie? Whose? If rebelling against modern societal norms (or whatever you want to call them) means following the demented ravings of a C7th peadophile, warlord and self-proclamed prophet then please feel free to be as anti-establishment as you want.

Why on earth would this woman wish to be a French citizen? Surely it stands for so much that she opposes, especially women who think for themselves and live independent lives and flaunt their faces in public. Wouldn’t she be much happier in say, Saudi Arabia?

When my grandfather applied for American citizenship in 1908, he had to sign a statement that included the following:

I am not a disbeliever in or opposed to organized government or a member of or affiliated with any organization or body of persons teaching disbelief in organized government. I am not a polygamist nor a believer in the practice of polygamy. I am attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and it is my intention to become a citizen of the United States and to renounce absolutely and forever all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, and particularly to Nicholas II, Emperor of Russia of which at this time I am a subject, and it is my intention to reside permanently in the United States.

Of course he later became a Stalinist, so I don’t know how much good it did.

Gene – I bet your Granpa had some good stories. I wonder how he felt about the revolution in 1917 – never tempted to go and join in?

Gene – I bet your Granpa had some good stories. I wonder how he felt about the revolution in 1917 – never tempted to go and join in?

No idea. I lived in a different part of the country from him and only saw him two or three times. And he died when I was 12.

“She has adopted a radical practice of her religion, incompatible with essential values of the French community, particularly the principle of equality of the sexes,” said a ruling by the Council of State
uk.reuters.com

One do wonder if she have “adopted” the radical practice or have been brain washed in this role since the day she was born.

and lives in “total submission” to her husband and male relatives, according to reports by social services.

Of this we can maybe draw the conclusion that the woman haven’t expressed any will of her self to become a French citizen it was what her male relatives wanted. the male relatives wish to make their property French citizen was denied.

“She has no idea about the secular state or the right to vote. She lives in total submission to her male relatives. She seems to find this normal and the idea of challenging it has never crossed her mind,” Emmanuelle Prada-Bordenave wrote.

I’ll guess France don’t normally reject children or mentally retarded people the right of citizenship on the grounds that they don’t understand how the secular society works.

One wonder how thin one can stretch cultural/religious accommodation, is it OK to raise and brainwash female child’s in to a role of submission and for the rest of their life under custody of male relatives.

When someone locks up and keep kids in basements and in submission the police storms in and rescue the victims.

I’m sorry to hear that. As it goes, my Grandpa also died when I was 12, so I didn’t get to hear about his time in Palestine, Iraq and Egypt, which would have been fascinating. He was a mechanic with the RAF, so was never involved in any combat.

Having said that, in order to be granted United States citizenship, one has to fulfil certain criteria of knowledge, commitment and loyalty, however merely formal.

But the woman is probably simply a very hardworking housewife and mother, in accord with the culture she came from, with little knowledge of or desire for anything else.

“I’m sorry to hear that. As it goes, my Grandpa also died when I was 12, so I didn’t get to hear about his time in Palestine, Iraq and Egypt, which would have been fascinating. He was a mechanic with the RAF, so was never involved in any combat.”

You mean… your grandpa… fixed… those machines that… gulp… drop bombs from the sky over defenseless people??????????
Noooooooooooooooooooooo!

You must surely hate him.

Now I get where your personality problems (wear a burka? hahahahahah) come from.

I pity you.

“Hell, if you outlaw the burqa, I’ll be the first to start wearing one.”

This would surely be the bonus outcome from all perspectives? The idea, Irie, that women wear the burkha as an instance of youthful rebellion is laughable.

(I do accept that there is some element of this in terms of hijab – because clearly some young Muslim women, as with some of the general yoof population, are contrarian and stupid with no understanding of history or wider context or the sacrifices made by womenkind to get away from that sort of nonsense.) (Is WestEndGirl still around? I wonder if my right-on commentary has increased my chances from negligible to profoundly unlikely?)

I’m normally very much the hardline secularist. But I’m genuinely uncertain what to think of this story. My first reaction is that it’s overly harsh. Because, actually, the fact that she’s oppressed isn’t going to be helped by having a citizenship application refused, is it? I suppose it partly depends on whether she’s a reactionary out of principle, or whether she’s a poor victim of background and circumstance. Do we know?

The burkha is not the swastika armband of the 21st century, by the way. That’s pretty sick. The burkha is no doubt for most women who wear it a symbol of oppression. People who wore swastika armbands were bullies and powerful. Those who wear the burkha are on the whole bullied and powerless.

I hadn’t read Irie’s last sad and uncombative comment before I posted. I look like even more of a Fwanker than I actually am, now.

Fabian, I don’t defend TheIrie much, but your comment was pretty mean-spirited.

Hell, if you outlaw the burqa, I’ll be the first to start wearing one.

I say, old chap, where does this end? Nudity is effectively outlawed in public places, due to indecency and exposure laws. When are you going to prance around Imperial College in the buff?

Zkharya, depends in financial control is held by the womenfolk in domo, or if this is another extension of male control. Given Lasse’s observation that the suggestion that Faiza M’s only demonstration of independent choice on French soil was to request citizenship is, frankly, unlikely, my guess is that “chattel” is a better description than “housewife”.

Ben, you and Josh may be right that she’s been twice oppressed, but given that the French state is already granting her residency, I really can’t see that this is its responsibility rather than her male relations. Then again, with the way I’m feeling at the moment, I’d happily change my opinion to get as far as profoundly unlikely.

I have to concur with Gene. Searching through FKI plc’s portfolio for evidence of military contracts, yes, but that, no.

Why do you say so, Gene?
He is wanker, and he has many times implied that his ultimate criterion for recognizing evil is whether you drop bombs from the sky or not. My commentary was more of an inside joke, than anything else.
Should I care if this wanker, who never wastes an opportunity to call Israelis “murdering bastards” and the like, loved his grandpa?

Come on!

“He resented my knowledge of Bengali customs and language and it challenged him.”

I speak Bengali and have spoken Bengali to people in Brick Lane. There’s a look of surprise, but not hostility. It could be that this was just an individual grumpy old man. They have them in Bangladesh, too.

“Just because she does not want to live in the same lifestyle as a European women does not make her an outlaw.”

True. Anyone can wear what they like, so long as no-one else’s freedom is threatened. And no-one should be forced to make friends with anyone. That’s what freedom of expression is about, isn’t it? Conformity is oppressive.

This can be applied quite easily to haredi women. I can see sheitlekh offending French secularist sensibilities every bit as much as burqas. Maintaining distance from worldly society will be counted against charedi women and their lifestyle treated as insufficiently free. It will now be much harder for women to marry strictly Orthodox Jewish men in France. This judgement is worrying.

Phil, you say “The burqa is the 21st century’s swastika armband.” I have always seen it as the Nuremberg Yellow Star Armband. Strange that it can encapsulate both symbols, the oppressed women victim and the Nazi male oppressor.

“The burqa is the 21st century’s swastika armband”
Nonsense.
What Colin says.

“This can be applied quite easily to haredi women. I can see sheitlekh offending French secularist sensibilities every bit as much as burqas. Maintaining distance from worldly society will be counted against charedi women and their lifestyle treated as insufficiently free. ”

Because it is. I don’t see it worrying. To wear wigs because your husband doesn’t want other men to see your hair is medieval.

Hasan, I will repeat, if I can be shown that Faiza M is going to removed from France (which, given that she has three young children who are presumably French citizens, just many hundreds of thousands of other non-citizens are allowed leave to remain, is unlikely), I will agree with you. If there were a case of a Charedi immigrant woman, never leaving the house, being refused citizenship, I would not disagree.

Is there?

“Bravo France!

Now you should put the icing on the cake and deport the entire family.”

Why not go the whole hog and just put the whole family in a gas chamber?

“On the grounds of the public good…”

It’s fitting that this kind of Nazi garbage should be posted here, it just shows again that this is a far-right hate site.

You shot the sheriff, Udham, but you did… oh, I’ve said this before.

Tolerance is such a double-edged sword. The Arabs have it right, I think. Interesting how they never once pander to Western ideas of tolerance (i.e. they would never consider letting a Western female parade around in a bikini in Saudi Arabia) yet they are only too quick to cry foul when tolerance of their culture is rejected in Western States.

Simply put, they want their cake and they want to eat it, too…or something to that effect.

And if the Salafists ever did find their way into positions of power and determination in France, the UK, etc. do you think they would extend the same tolerance that has been extended them? It’s not hateful to call it like you see it–this Islamist movement is not the sort of movement that is content with minding its own business. There is no reason to be, on an institutional level, tolerant of the very most intolerant people on Earth…

Satisfied now, Udham?

Maybe there are benefits to being a French citizen?

The burqa or hijb isn’t worn, contrary to what some males here seem to think, as some sort of fashion statement. It is worn to show that the wearer is spiritually and religiously superior to the non-wearer. And if only the eyes are shown, it cuts the woman off from a great deal of contact with other women, let alone men.

Interesting that so many of the women I see wearing the full hijab are accompanied by men in conventional western clothes. And no I don’t think this is because their wives are more religious than they are, I think it is because fully veiled Islamic women are regarded as keepers of their faith’s standards of personal morality.

You can find articles about turning hospital beds to Mecca here and here

The piggy bank story was probably false; my apologies. However, for Muslim men only swimming periods, you can check that our here , featuring a nice shot of someone named David Toube who writes at Harry’s Place.

References to rowdy youths (more on the Continent than in England) are way too numerous to list. They are all Muslim.

Seymour Paine, you really are a disgusting piece of shite

References to rowdy youths (more on the Continent than in England) are way too numerous to list. They are all Muslim.

I assume you don’t mean the banlieue riots in which the police were arresting dago… no… southern Europeans left right and centre.

Hilmi said –
“this is why a report published by RAND stated that Muslims raised in Europe are studying either Medicine or Engineering (universal subjects that are not linked with a particular country) for the sole purpose of leaving Europe and working elsewhere because of oppression and persecution”
Yes that’s true, – apart from middle east studies of course – but thats also a part of the problem. The lack of interest in humanities and social science is just an illustration of some of these groups non partition in the civil society, and their non willingness to engage in the self reflection that are necessary when you study these subjects.

I swear I wont be surprised in ten years time you will have new concentration camps for Muslims. Indeed Fascism is a consequence of Capitalism when it feels threatened.

“The Arabs have it right, I think. Interesting how they never once pander to Western ideas of tolerance (i.e. they would never consider letting a Western female parade around in a bikini in Saudi Arabia) yet they are only too quick to cry foul when tolerance of their culture is rejected in Western States.”

Have you been to Dubai? Bikini-clad women drinking cocktails on the beach? There is tolerance of European lifestyles in many Arab states, that’s why some (Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco, UAE) are tourist destinations. Saudi Arabia is intolerant, but European Russia is not particularly tolerant of black people, homosexuals and democrats.

“The burqa or hijb isn’t worn, contrary to what some males here seem to think, as some sort of fashion statement. It is worn to show that the wearer is spiritually and religiously superior to the non-wearer.”

Many Muslim women say they choose to wear the headscarf because (a) it is part of their culture and (b) they feel naked without it and that men will start assessing the way they look. One Sudanese friend, from one of Sudan’s ruling families and a direct descendent of the Al-Mahdi, said she would wear the scarf in Sudan but not in the West because dressing modestly, as required in Islam, differed from culture to culture and wearing it in Britain attracted more attention than not wearing it. Her father was quite happy with her decision. Arab women I have spoken to have also said that they do not consider it obligatory to wear the scarf and wear it because it was simply their custom. They generally feel that the niqab is spooky, unnecessary and extreme.

But in my mind, if someone wants to wear a piece of clothing that identifies their ideological persuasion or their culture, they should be allowed to do so regardless of what others think – just as Goths can look creepy, hoodies look scary, etc. A hoody-wearer could be completely soft or a violent thug. A niqab-wearing woman could be a genuinely kind and warm person or she could be wearing a suicide belt. If you base citizenship on what someone wears rather than whether or not they are law-abiding and responsible people, then you’re certainly stepping down a dangerous path.

Has anybody in this thread make any connection between terrorism and the niqab? No, as far as I know. Maybe you are discusing with imaginary people.

One good reason to ban burkhas is to see TheIrie wearing one. And a week later we’ll ban Playboy bunnies’ costumes and go round to South Ken to see TheIrie prancing in one…

But, seriously, I think we are getting the wrong end of the stick here. Freedom is also a freedom to be different, even in ways that I, personally, find objectionable. It simply feels wrong to beast upon a defenceless woman who has already been disempowered by her own hubby and reduced by him to a status of an inferior human being, in a double whammy.

Yep, we need to have universal values in our societies, and these values include the fact than a woman is equal to a man and has exactly the same right to express (or hide) her sexuality, the same right to life, career and stuff. Fine. So, the question is, how do we go about making these values truly universal throughout society. The obvious answer is, as somebody once said, education, education, education. OK, so you let that woman be a French citizen, and perhaps few hundred like her: the French Republic will survive, don’t you worry. But make sure that her kids, together with other kids in France, are educated and imbued at school with the values of France, inclusive of secularism.

And on this it seems that France is doing rather better than UK with its ludicrous “faith schools” and tolerance of educational and cultural ghettos.

Have you been to Dubai? Bikini-clad women drinking cocktails on the beach? There is tolerance of European lifestyles in many Arab states, that’s why some (Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco, UAE) are tourist destinations.

That’s a fair point, but these individuals are not granted citizenship or, even, in many cases, prolonged residency. And, if they overstep certain boundaries, are even subject to censure of the local law. In many cases, rightly I think.

Dan, I know you have far greater personal experience of Muslim countries – Yemen, Bangladesh, to name just two – than most of other commenters here, but you are trying to have a different conversation than laid out by the title essay. Fazia M does not require citizenship to remain or, as far as I can see, any conceivable additional personal benefit.

Saudi Arabia is intolerant, but European Russia is not particularly tolerant of black people, homosexuals and democrats.

And if I saw a black, homosexual democrat applying for Russian citizenship, I’d ask why, and not be overly surprised if he were rejected. Can we discuss France and the niqab?

Have you been to Dubai? Bikini-clad women drinking cocktails on the beach? There is tolerance of European lifestyles in many Arab states, that’s why some (Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco, UAE) are tourist destinations.

That’s a fair point, but these individuals are not granted citizenship or, even, in many cases, prolonged residency. And, if they overstep certain boundaries, are even subject to censure of the local law. In many cases, rightly I think.

Dan, I know you have far greater personal experience of Muslim countries – Yemen, Bangladesh, to name just two – than most of other commenters here, but you are trying to have a different conversation than laid out by the title essay. Fazia M does not require citizenship to remain or, as far as I can see, any conceivable additional personal benefit.

Saudi Arabia is intolerant, but European Russia is not particularly tolerant of black people, homosexuals and democrats.

And if I saw a black, homosexual democrat applying for Russian citizenship, I’d ask why, and not be overly surprised if he were rejected. Can we discuss France and the niqab?

If you base citizenship on what someone wears rather than whether or not they are law-abiding and responsible people,

This is not a base-ball cap turned backwards, this is a symbol and demonstration of a rejection of participation in French civic life. So, yes, “responsible” is a valid description.

Can I ask if you’re a Yemeni or Bangladeshi citizen?

then you’re certainly stepping down a dangerous path.

No, if you reserve the right to rescind citizenship on the basis of subsequently adopted non-illegal behaviour, then you’re certainly stepping down a dangerous path. Would you have required the UK or the USA, 100 years ago, to have accepted Russian anarchists without question? No, they’d likely have been deported, and not granted leave to remain.

Whoopsie, one and a halfish post.

No, if you reserve the right to rescind citizenship on the basis of subsequently adopted non-illegal behaviour

Quick correct, on the basis of *any* subsequently adopted behaviour and not a falsified original application.

Since i have been told that there is no dictate for wearing the full Burkha in the Koran, i ask myself why in a western soceity where there aRE no burning dessert sands or searing sunshine,would ther be such constant pressure from muslims to force this upon us.?

If this woman does, in fact, share none of the common political values of France, then this decision harms her little.

Howevern if she holds those values, this is a terrible thing to have done to her.

David T – And what would you put the chances – as in hanging thumb suck probability – of her voluntarily submitting to the burqua, whilst sharing the “common political values of France”?

Personally, I’d put it at of the same order of magnitude – maybe even a tad less – as some Le Pen supporting oik with a swastika armband, subscribing to the concept of ‘Liberty, Equality and Fraternity’.

“It is a good question that could equally be asked here. Why be a citizen of a country that you have no interest or knowledge of, but in fact live in complete alienation to?”

How would Hassidic Jews answer?

geez, has this thread be invaded by some KKK clone from Canada (Mary)?

Yeah, I’ve deleted her comments.

Hey, modernity! What a welcome addition to discussion that I’m a piece of shit. How old are you actually? Ten? Twelve?

In Star Trek,the Borg are rather keen on assimilation.Luckily, Jean-Luc
Picard dont play that shit cos the Starfleet Federation respects diversity.
Gordon could learn much from Captain Jean-Luc Picard.

“That’s a fair point, but these individuals are not granted citizenship or, even, in many cases, prolonged residency. And, if they overstep certain boundaries, are even subject to censure of the local law. In many cases, rightly I think.”

I know of one British journalist who was arrested for quitting his post in Dubai and trying to return to the UK – he was charged with “absconding” but later released when his employers let him go. Dubai’s labour laws frighten me more than the emirate’s official religion.

“This is not a base-ball cap turned backwards, this is a symbol and demonstration of a rejection of participation in French civic life. So, yes, “responsible” is a valid description.”

What I love about France is its revolutionary history and the way in which French philosophers have always challenged “civic life”. Conservatism and conformity seem very un-French to me – in fact, they seem very British.

“Can I ask if you’re a Yemeni or Bangladeshi citizen?”

I spent a bit of my childhood in Bahrain, we had Yemeni tribesmen as lodgers (sponsored by BP to learn English, but spent most of their time looking after me, including teaching me how to pray and wash – in my mind, they were better men than my own father and as such I am highly defensive of Arabs) and later in life I lived in Bangladesh and West Bengal. The Indian government has registered me as a “person of Indian origin”. I did not have to prove how Indian I was or even whether I could speak an Indian language. I didn’t even have an interview to see whether I was able to fit into Indian society. I qualified on the basis that my grandfather lived in India, my father was born there and my wife is Indian. Hence, I am Indian. The great thing about India is that everyone born in that country is Indian, whether they are Tamil, Kashmiri, Nepali, Tibetan, Anglo, Chinese, African, Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, Christian, Jewish, Zoroastrian, Atheist, or whatever. To me, the concept of Indian citizenship is far more progressive than the current notion of Frenchness, which is subjective, ideologically loaded and close to the BNP’s version of Britishness. If the British were to adopt the French stance, I would gladly call myself Indian or Arab or anything but British.

I don’t see the niqab as a rejection of British life. I don’t see it as irresponsible. If you see the niqab as a symbol of women’s oppression, then you would see niqab-wearing women as oppressed. Is she a victim? What better but to chip at that oppression by giving them citizenship, which would give them the right to divorce, cast off their garments and still remain in the country? Anyway, is there a uniform for Frenchness or Britishness?

I admit that I find the niqab a little intimidating. I also found my cousin’s daughter dressed in her Goth uniform, complete with piercings, black make-up and leather, quite a shock. But it’s my problem, not their’s. Beneath all of this is a human being with thoughts, with intelligence and with emotions. A woman who wears a niqab could be the most decent and kind person you could ever meet. Likewise with a scary Goth.

I would not want to throw Faiza M on the scrap heap. She is the same age as me and it would be, at least, interesting to befriend such a person.

“How would Hassidic Jews answer?”

OK I’m blogging, I’m blogging. Which end do into I speak?

One good reason to ban burkhas is to see TheIrie wearing one.

Pissed as a fart I currently am (there is no prophet but Shiraz Ibn Zinfandel) can we all save up and buy TheIrie a ballgag for his burqa as well?

The Irie: “As it goes, my Grandpa also died when I was 12, so I didn’t get to hear about his time in Palestine, Iraq and Egypt, which would have been fascinating. He was a mechanic with the RAF, so was never involved in any combat.”

Glad to hear your grandfather was not involved in any combat in Palestine, then he couldn’t have been the one who gave my mother-in-law a taste of the shaft of his rifle when she was thirteen and standing in a queue for milk for her baby brother in a short break in the curfew.

http://imshin.net/?p=822

Any country has the right to exclude from citizenship any immigrant it deems not beneficial to the the country.

To argue the opposite is to argue against sovereignty — and that is what many of you are doing. You are either confused or you are opposed to the idea of French sovereignty and argue dishonestly.

The argument that this woman would benefit from French citizenship is neither here nor there. Most people from backward countries like Morocco would benefit from French citizenship. About 3 to 5 billion people worldwide would benefit from French citizenship, but not if they all moved to France this week, because France would than cease to exist.

It is not likely that this poor woman wears a tent because she likes to be treated like chattel, like a dog, although anything is possible. But what about about the creepy, evil men-folk of her family? Those are the people France really needs to keep out.

In the end, the question is, will France become more like Morocco, or Morocco more like France? If you would like to see Moroccans enjoy the liberty and prosperity and rights of the French, then the first thing to do is to defend France’s right to remain French.

Phil: “The burqa is the 21st century’s swastika armband.”

Spot on.

It’s entirely appropriate for a place of work or study to impose a dress code, but not for a democratic state to do so.

The burqa is an inherently sexist item of clothing, so should not be worn by teachers, who should be required to set an example, or by pupils, who should be taught about the equality of the sexes. Something similar should apply to all public workplaces.

But if a private individual wants to dress or behave in a certain way, then it’s nobody’s business but their own. The woman’s worthiness for citizenship should be judged on the basis of whether she respects the laws of the land, not on how she dresses or what personal lifestyle she adopts. The French ruling is an egregious violation of the principle of freedom of choice and of expression.

Marko: those are British values: liberalism taken to the extreme. French values accentuate secularism. France has every right to deny the citizenship of that woman on its own terms, which find her beliefs incompatible with French values.

Spain, for example, values cultural proximity to the Spanish language and customs. Thus, Latin American immigrants are privileged in their access to citizenship compared to African immigrants. What does have to do with respect for the laws of the land? Absolutely nothing. It is another requisite completely. And it is legitimate.
Your take is that a country shouldn’t prefer one immigrant to other on any other respect that they haven’t broken any law or plan to do so. That is one take. It is certainly a minoritarian view in the world, in which almost each and every country has certain sets of criteria for encouraging the addition of people who are alike.

“The woman’s worthiness for citizenship should be judged on the basis of whether she respects the laws of the land, not on how she dresses or what personal lifestyle she adopts.”

Yes but is it true that she respects French laws in a sense that is relevant here ? She is not breaking any law , true, but she is not endorsing , embracing the law pertaining to gender equality and so she is not respecting the law in this richer sense and that is the problem.

I know of one British journalist who was arrested for [...]

Okay, scratch “many” with “certain”.

The Indian government has registered me as a “person of Indian origin”. [...] Hence, I am Indian.

Actually, I don’t think you are. We’re talking about citizenship. You ain’t allowed to vote for apply for whatever an inner line permit is. That is, you have pretty much the same status as Faiza M is going to continue receiving in France.

I don’t see the niqab as [...] irresponsible.

Well, the French courts do. And can we please stop equating residency in Britain/France/India with citizenship or, as with the RCP nutter, obsessing about Jews (I would approve of the same for a reclusive Chassid woman applying for citizenship) or implying that this is in any way similar to citizenship being withdrawn.

What better but to chip at that oppression by giving them citizenship,

And for the hundreds of millions of other oppressed woman in Muslim countries or the Indian hinterland? If you want to demand that France, or Britain, grant citizenship to the whole world, say so. I suspect, though, that you’ll impose such arbitrary restrictions as their geographic location and inability to reach French soil.

Most of all, the state is not one giant social worker and there comes a point when oppression of individuals is the fault of their communities which, to receive rewards, should start behaving a little bit better.

To me, the concept of Indian citizenship is far more progressive than the current notion of Frenchness, which is subjective, ideologically loaded and close to the BNP’s version of Britishness.

The ethnic and religious groups you mentioned all have a direct history in India: you should have suggested, say, a Yoruba or Quecha. I think it’s still the case that French citizenship is bestowed on anyone born on French (home or overseas) territory, regardless of parental citizenship; pregnant women trying to get by boat to Caribbean islands. Hundreds, if not thousands of non-Europeans are granted citizenship in France and the UK every year, and many more residency (e.g. Faiza M). So, not only is it nothing like the BNP, it’s nothing like the BNP due to any discrimination not being according to race.

I also found my cousin’s daughter dressed in her Goth uniform, complete with piercings, black make-up and leather, quite a shock.

Goth apparel is about the wearer’s twattishness feelings about themselves, not the personal morality of others. This is a neutral statement, but it is to highlight the difference. It’s reflexive rather than reproach.

I would not want to throw Faiza M on the scrap heap.

And, once again, as far as I can see, she is to remain in France with the opportunities to avail herself of the myriad associated benefits. All that is required is for her, or her menfolk, to stop thinking she’s a chattel or the surrounding society to be morally impure. Why is this the French state’s fault?

What benefit of citizenship would she use? Certainly not voting. Hubby wanting to bring over family members?

She is the same age as me and it would be, at least, interesting to befriend such a person.

In the present circumstances, I doubt she’d agree. This ain’t about you, Dan, and some sybaritic desire to embrace and investigate different mindsets and social mores.

Also the French ruling is not based only on the claim that Faiza M wears burqa ( the argument is that she has not assimilated to French culture ) and so most of the criticisms of the ruling which say that she is entitled to wear what she wants are simply barking up the wrong tree because that is not really the main premiss of the ruling. So to show that Faiza M was treated unjustly one has to show that the demand that she assimilates ( where this means that would be citizens *endorse* French law regarding gender equality ) which the ruling is critically based on is flawed. In other words a different kind of argument is needed to challenge the French ruling and one which shows that to demand that would be citizens endorse French law is discriminatory or unjust in some way .

samuel stott said, what needs to be said about this.

zdenkv

“Yes but is it true that she respects French laws in a sense that is relevant here ? She is not breaking any law , true, but she is not endorsing , embracing the law pertaining to gender equality and so she is not respecting the law in this richer sense and that is the problem.”

In which case anyone in France who believes God is a man (i.e trinitarian Christians) or that men are better than women (numerous French men ) or some races are better than others (numerous
Front National supporters) as well as all criminals (they clearly dont respect the law) should be stripped of their citizenship

But much easier to attack vulnerable minority women eh?

The whole thing is so perverse- claiming to uphold women’s rights by denying a woman her rights

On another thread, a poster said that there was an employment law ruling (in France) that a port butcher could not refuse a job to a Muslim who erfused to handle port products. This strikes me as similar to our own ‘hijab hairdresser’ case. Does anyone know any further details of this case?

samuel stott : “Any country has the right to exclude from citizenship any immigrant it deems not beneficial to the the country.
To argue the opposite is to argue against sovereignty — and that is what many of you are doing. You are either confused or you are opposed to the idea of French sovereignty and argue dishonestly. ”

True but I wonder how relevant this point is because the criteria France uses to deny citizenship maybe discriminatory and that is the issue. Is it wrong i.e discriminatory to exclude people just because they do not endorse French values ? France has clearly a right to make choices ( for the reasons you mention ) regarding who becomes citizen but suppose that it based the choice on racist or purely anti -semitic prejudices. If this was the case it would be surely right to question such criteria for denying citizenship ?

Me, no-one gives a hoot what you think, but let’s pretend I do. Time and time again in this thread, posters have stressed that no-one is being stripped of citizenship and that we would, apart from very narrow circumstances, oppose it if it did occur.

Now, either learn to read or naff off.

“France has clearly a right to make choices ( for the reasons you mention ) regarding who becomes citizen but suppose that it based the choice on racist or purely anti -semitic prejudices.”

But it is not.

‘French values accentuate secularism. France has every right to deny the citizenship of that woman on its own terms, which find her beliefs incompatible with French values.’

Who decides what ‘French values’ are, Fabian ?

If not being secular is incompatible with Frenchness, then what about all those French priests, nuns, rabbis ? Are they to be considered second-class French citizens, and treated accordingly ?

Are deeply religious people to be penalised for their beliefs ? If so, then what is left of freedom of conscience ?

(it doesn’t)

Honestly, you’d think this were a Jewish site with all this talk.

Are they to be considered second-class French citizens, and treated accordingly ?

No, because of what I’ve just said to Me.

“Who decides what ‘French values’ are, Fabian ?”

The French, through their institutions. Like in this case.

“If not being secular is incompatible with Frenchness, then what about all those French priests, nuns, rabbis ? Are they to be considered second-class French citizens, and treated accordingly?”

Of course not. But the French are allowed to think that those people you mention follow irrational beliefs; while not allowed or desiring to take away their citizenship, the majority of the French are allowed to demand that those who hold values incompatible with France not be added to their society.

“Are deeply religious people to be penalised for their beliefs ? If so, then what is left of freedom of conscience ?”

She is free to believe whatever she wants. Does that depend on being granted French citizenship?

me : “In which case anyone in France who believes God is a man (i.e trinitarian Christians) or that men are better than women (numerous French men ) or some races are better than others (numerous
Front National supporters) as well as all criminals (they clearly dont respect the law) should be stripped of their citizenship”

I disagree because there is a key difference between a French citizen holding such views and a person who seeks a French citizenship holding them. In the first case the right which the person already has cannot be alienated simply by disagreeing and hence not endorsing French values but the same is not the case in the second case. What this reflects roughly is the fact that birth provides a natural right to citizenship something outsiders do not enjoy ( and this also btw explains what people mean when they say that non cotizens who seek citizenship do not have a right to it and that when they recieve it is a privilege ).

The problem, Marko, is that you think that she is being penalized. She is not. She is simply refused the awarding of an honor: French citizenship.
Im not using the word honor in vane. The Argentinian Constitution calls it thus.

Marko, in all fairness, last time you posted on the integration of Muslims it was to endorse some wannabe hard-man who was trying to wow his college lecturer with threats to join Al-Qaida if he didn’t get citizenship/residency. So, yes, I do question your understanding of the two-way-street concept.

Aren’t there considerable state benefits for large families in France? Maybe it is these she wishes to avail herself of by becoming a citizen?

If so it seems all the more reasonable to me that the French state demand she conforms to the values it requires from prospective citizens before granting her citizenship. This might for example include bringing up your children to acknowledge and respect the equality of the sexes and demonstrate some understanding, or desire to understand, the culture you wish to join. Neither would seem to be the case here.

‘the French are allowed to demand that those who hold values incompatible with France not be added to their society.’

Indeed; France is a sovereign state and can make its own rules. But it doesn’t make their decision in this instance any more democratic.

‘She is free to believe whatever she wants. Does that depend on being granted French citizenship?’

Yes, it does. By withholding from her the rights and privileges of citizenship, because of her personal beliefs and lifestyle choices, the state is essentially penalising those who have such beliefs and make such choices. And that is not something the state should do.

It’s really no different from preventing a foreign-born Communist from gaining French citizenship on the grounds that Communism is unpatriotic and incompatible with ‘Frenchness’.

I would just like human rights to be discussed in muslim countries as earnestly as they are in our western countries

Marko AH : “Yes, it does. By withholding from her the rights and privileges of citizenship, because of her personal beliefs and lifestyle choices, the state is essentially penalising those who have such beliefs and make such choices. And that is not something the state should do.
It’s really no different from preventing a foreign-born Communist from gaining French citizenship on the grounds that Communism is unpatriotic and incompatible with ‘Frenchness’. ”

No this is misleading , it only penalizes non French citizens who seek French citizenship to which they do not have a automatic right and the penalization may be justified ; that it is not justified needs to be shown and not merely assumed.

Okay, point taken that she is not an existing citizen, but applying to be one. But the principal criterion the judgement is based on arises from the (undeniable) fact that the woman is oppressed. The Burka is not a ’symbol’ of oppression but an oppression itself. Plus her dependence on patriachs. This however, as a specialist on such alws, in the main le Monde article noted, is a surprising basis for such a ruling. Does it mean that battered women who continue in an abusive relationship ought to be denied citizenship? And where do you draw the line about levels of oppression (and therefore unable to be a full citizen)?

Again, this is a question of private life: I thought that you liberal leftists were all in favour of a degree of independence for civil society, free from the state? I personally am pretty hard-line on secularism, but I can foresee that this case will not be taken as about secular freedom versus the racist misogynist sides of religion, but about interference in people’s everyday behaviour.

“But it doesn’t make their decision in this instance any more democratic.”

Why not? The will of the French citizens, through their representants, has spoken. It is democratic.

“By withholding from her the rights and privileges of citizenship, because of her personal beliefs and lifestyle choices, the state is essentially penalising those who have such beliefs and make such choices. And that is not something the state should do.”

Again, the state is not penalizing her. France has no obligation towards her. She is a citizen of another country.

Alec, I really don’t care if you ‘question my concept of a two-way street’, or whatever.

The teacher who worked with the teenager in question described him as a confused, frightened victim of abuse who wanted nothing more than to lead a normal life in Britain. He was not a ‘wannable hard man’.

But no doubt you feel you understand all those faceless hordes of immigrants better than the people who actually know them…

So serenely on under the flag of She’s a Helot and About to be Deported! Land are her supporters sailing that I have to ask, is she? Answering uh-huh will concede a point to you, nuh-huh to us; ignoring it, as per before, dishonesty.

“It’s really no different from preventing a foreign-born Communist from gaining French citizenship on the grounds that Communism is unpatriotic and incompatible with ‘Frenchness’. ””

Indeed, it is no different. That is why Communists were allowed as citizens only when they were being persecuted to death, or when they -disingenuously- did not declared that their wish is to see the country that hosted them, and bestowed upon them rights, destroyed.

lives in “total submission” to her husband and male relatives, according to reports by social services. …
“she lives almost as a recluse, isolated from French society,” Le Monde reported. …
“She has no idea about the secular state or the right to vote. She lives in total submission to her male relatives. She seems to find this normal and the idea of challenging it has never crossed her mind,” …

It’s a strange case, if as described by the social services she has given up her free will and submitted entirely to her male relatives. One could maybe have a minimum claim that a person applying for citizenship is doing so of their own initiative and in free will, It could be doubted in this case. I don’t know for France but I suppose as in many other democracies with some juridical standard a contract that one part haven’t in free will entered into isn’t legal binding.

One can doubt the soundness of entering a contract with a person that is deprived of their free will and remote controlled by other persons. A adult citizenship is not merely rights it’s also obligations to the society and fellow citizens. How can you make this contract with a adult person that obviously don’t want to face the responsibilities of an adult citizen. Children and mentally retarded that is declared incapable of managing their own affairs is of course special cases.

Alec: “Actually, I don’t think you are. We’re talking about citizenship. You ain’t allowed to vote for apply for whatever an inner line permit is. That is, you have pretty much the same status as Faiza M is going to continue receiving in France.”

India does not allow dual citizenship so has come up with a system that gives de facto dual citizenship via the PIO/OCI. True, I cannot vote, which is a shame as my wife was able to stand for elections in the UK because she is a citizen of a Commonwealth country and I cannot do the same in India – not that I’d want to. I can’t get an Inner-Line Permit but I can get a Protected Area Permit, which is effectively the same thing. I would be able to apply for Indian citizenship within a couple of years without being interrogated about my Indianness. A certain Italian woman did the same thing and became the leader of the largest political party.

“If you want to demand that France, or Britain, grant citizenship to the whole world, say so. I suspect, though, that you’ll impose such arbitrary restrictions as their geographic location and inability to reach French soil.”

I think someone who lives in France, has had children there and has broken no laws has the right to citizenship, regardless of what clothes she wears or what god she worships. If the French think she’s oppressed, why not give this resident the rights she will enjoy as a citizen?

“Goth apparel is about the wearer’s twattishness feelings about themselves, not the personal morality of others.”
I don’t think wearing the niqab is meant to be reproachful of non-Muslim morality, or it would not be worn in Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia.

“All that is required is for her, or her menfolk, to stop thinking she’s a chattel or the surrounding society to be morally impure. Why is this the French state’s fault?”

I don’t think subservience to men or the notion that society is corrupt is exclusive to Islamic fundamentalists. Catholicism is deeply routed in French society.

“What benefit of citizenship would she use? Certainly not voting. Hubby wanting to bring over family members?”

If the ruling was based on the possibility that her citizenship would be used as a door for immigration for his family and France wants to restrict immigration numbers for whatever economic reason, then I’d have more respect for it.

It would be an interesting experiment to define Frenchness and see how many people who were born French live up to those values. If many French citizens fail the test, then why should someone be denied citizenship on the basis of some ideological notion of “French values”?

Marko, I don’t know the kid, so will defer greatly to your friend (especially as otherwise affable Algerians in Edinburgh have said the same to me). However, Graham’s advice was apposite: don’t advertize it. It was the equivalent of “have you got the bomb” at airport security, followed by “don’t arrest me, I’m an idiot”.

Cited on Le Nouvel Observateur’s web site a government Minister declared on Staurday re. this case that “the principle of equality between the sexes is not negotiable.” It is all down to a “defaut d’assimilation”.

http://tempsreel.nouvelobs.com/actualites/societe/20080712.OBS2596/port_de_la_burqa__pecresse_approuve_le_refus_de_nationa.html

“the principle of equality between the sexes is not negotiable”

vive la différence?

Dan, this is becoming demented. Your wife, despite not being a citizen, could stand for office, the UK and France both permit dual citizenship as well as PIO-analogue residency, but it’s us who’re behaving like the BN/JP? France has had black Generals and now has the son of an immigrant as President (I recall a lot of people didn’t want an immigrant PM in India). The UK has foreign-born elected and appointed senior politicians.

Not perfect, but nor is India. It’s like the baby who never said please!

“Denied any prospects for work or education in their homelands, young people in Pakistan, Afghanistan and elsewhere turn to al Qaeda or the Taliban, who appear to offer them a future and a cause. Tragically, Britain’s clumsy, brutal system of immigration and asylum, shaped in large part by the need to appease the Daily Mail constituency, is contributing to this process of Islamist recruitment. Our system sends young refugees – who might have made a valuable contribution to the economic and cultural wealth of our country – back home to swell the ranks of our enemies.”
(from Marco AH´s post “Sending them back to Al Qaeda”)

“The teacher who worked with the teenager in question described him as a confused, frightened victim of abuse who wanted nothing more than to lead a normal life in Britain. He was not a ‘wannable hard man’.”(Marco AH on this thread at 11:02)

Sorry Marco, as far as I can see, you are not being consistent.

Alec: Indian citizenship does not come with a dress code. The issue here is that this woman was not behaving in accordance with French values – values that are not defined. If she fulfills all legal requirements of citizenship – two years residency, fluency in French, marriage to a French citizen, law-abiding, etc – then her mode of dress is irrelevant as is what rights she chooses to exercise. There is, at present, nothing in France’s nationality laws that prevent someone with a certain religion or lifestyle from becoming a citizen. The controversy arises because the court has decided to measure her against such an ill-defined and contentious concept of identity that is rooted in nationalist chauvinism. That is the injustice.

Dan – French values are defined – the state is secular and committed to equal rights for all its citizens. That is what the French Revolution was all about. Why then should the French government grant her citizenship and the benefits (some financial) which accompany it, when there is no indication whatsoever that her family will modify their position. This is I am afraid, a very clear example of Muslims putting their religious values first and then screeching discrimination when these conflict with those of the state they are seeking to join.

“The controversy arises because the court has decided to measure her against such an ill-defined and contentious concept of identity that is rooted in nationalist chauvinism.”

That applies also to “Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité”? Ill-defined they are. But chauvinistic? Get out of here!

“French values are defined – the state is secular and committed to equal rights for all its citizens.”

Secularism means the separation of religion and state, not the elimination of religion or dictating how religion should be practiced. I see no move towards the French courts ruling women have an equal right to become Catholic priests.

Dan, the burqa/niqab is firmly part of an entrenched element of Indian society. It is not a simple choice of apparell. Fazia M has not been refused because of only it. She is not about to be removed.

You know this, so stop pretending the court decision is about it.

The niqab is rooted in the Arabian Gulf and has been adopted by a minority of Muslims in South Asia. It is not “firmly entrenched” at all.

Reclusiveness is not, I think, the issue. If she had been a reclusive non-Muslim, would she have been denied citizenship? The court has a problem with what she wears.

“She is not about to be removed”

I never said she was.

“Secularism means the separation of religion and state, not the elimination of religion or dictating how religion should be practiced. ”

But in this case it is not a question of how religion should be practiced, but how citizenship should be practiced. And in this case, this woman has no interest of practicing it at all. Why honor her with it then?

Fabian: “But in this case it is not a question of how religion should be practiced, but how citizenship should be practiced. And in this case, this woman has no interest of practicing it at all. Why honor her with it then?”

Is there a requirement in French nationality law that states how citizenship should be practiced?

BTW, if she, somehow, felt oppressed, although no law is broken (I am thinking that she is not a slave) it is still not the duty of France to solve this problem.
She could very well go back to her country of origin, and use her citizenship rights there to change the political consensus on how women should live.
The problem is that she, I assume, doesn’t want to change the laws of her country of origin towards a more egalitarian stance on women’s rights. But she would try to imposse those inegalitarian views on her adoptive country.
Why should the latter country choose to add more reactionary individuals like her?
And why this somehow proves that France is an illiberal country?

“Is there a requirement in French nationality law that states how citizenship should be practiced?”

There are formal laws and there is the custom of the land, which is not always made into a law, but rest in values held by the people of the land. In this case the custom of the land was interpreted by the Council of State. She doesn’t fit the custom of the land, they argued, because of her attitude to the value of equality of the sexes.

Imshin – I’m well aware of the colonial brutalities my Grandparents generation meted out, all over the world, and deeply ashamed of it. Of course, I believe the root problem was not the soliders, many of whom were victims themselves, but the politicians. And, lo and behold, we have learned nothing from this – we are still doing exactly the same, be we former victims (the State of Israel), the old empires (Britain and Europe) or the new empire (America). I guess most of us on this blog belong to one of these three groups, but its fascinating to compare our ancestry, isn’t it? Fabian – how about your Grandparents? Would you like to share their story? (btw, I wasn’t offended by earlier remarks – its par for the course).

The question, that needs answering is: Why should France grant
this woman citizenship?
Not *why is she denied citizenship?*
France (and any other country) has every right to require active
commitment to her values and active cotribution to her economy
as a condition for granting citizenship.
(Granting permit of residency for humanitarian- or other reasons
is a completely different matter).

“Fabian – how about your Grandparents? Would you like to share their story?”

On my mother’s side, my grandfather was a tailor, he was born in Buenos Aires. Never met him, he died young. My grandmother worked with him, she came very young from Poland. She died when I was five. They were both very poor.
On my father’s side, my grandfather was born in the countryside, in one of the Jewish colonies of the Baron Hirsch. He was the only one from seven brothers who was sent for a higher education in Buenos Aires. He had a plastic factory. He died in 1992. My grandmother came from Poland too to Buenos Aires when she was six, escaping from the pogroms. She was a housewife. She died in 1995. She was a Zionist, and had a poster of Saddat and Begin in her room. We never talked about it, but when she died I inherited Herzl’s The Jewish State from her, and decided to read it.

Poland, Russia or Ukraine… the borders changed many times.

“her values” meaning of course France´s values in this case.

Thanks – interesting. My family has led a very sheltered life by any comparison.

Mrs Ben has got it right. Let’s not forget the French actually had a revolution to rid themselves of clericism and aristocracy. They kick started political theory into the modern world. It’s not about how she dresses or whether she stays at home, it’s about the fact that her attitudes are not in line with the founding sentiments of France. She does not believe that all men (and women) are equal. As Alex has pointed out, she is not being removed, she is being allowed to stay.

And, lo and behold, we have learned nothing from this – we are still doing exactly the same, be we former victims (the State of Israel), the old empires (Britain and Europe) or the new empire (America)

Except that we’re NOT, TheIrie. The people who are doing the “colonial” brutalising are the genocidal dictators and thugs that YOU want to keep in place.

Ah, but Dan, I did not say it was a prominent and entrenched feature of Indian society. I said it [has] featured in an element of an entrenched section Indian society [Muslims] [for a prolonged period]. Which it has.

I hope we’re not about to have a semantic squabble about burqas and niqabs.

Reclusiveness is not, I think, the issue.

Well, it’s not simply down to hermitry. If she had arrived to work as a shepherdess in the Pyrenees, her not engaging with human company other than her immediate family/contacts could be justified by her occupation (which, arguably, would be contributing to the economy). As it stands, her only contribution has been bearing children – who, let us not forget, will almost certainly be French citizens and not about to be stripped out this – who we have every reason to suspect are not being instilled with notions of separation of religion and state or equality of the sexes.

If she had been a reclusive non-Muslim, would she have been denied citizenship? The court has a problem with what she wears.

As Zdenek has challenged, to justify this question you should provide test cases of equally ‘reclusive’ non-Muslim non-citizens being denied the bestowment of citizenship. Is there? And stop implying it’s all simply down to what she’s wearing, and not her general demeanour and attitude.

I never said she was.

You have, with perfect respect, dodged the repeated statement that this ain’t equal to the rescinding of pre-existing citizenship or due only to her choice of apparel (which, in turn, you insist is indistinguishable in concept from a kilt or shalwar qamiz) or implied she is to become a second-class citizen (when, in fact, she will received the same protection from murder or physical mistreatment as citizens) or played the BNP card when it’s patently clear she ain’t being discriminated against by private religion let alone ethnicity or compared your PIO to the absence or, er, residency status in the UK and France.

It is not such a great leap, then, to assume that you were, at the very least, leaving open the implication that she is.

(Andrew, why are you ashamed of something which you didn’t do and which happened decades before you were born?)

“Poland, Russia or Ukraine… the borders changed many times.”

A very dear member of my family was born in what is now (Western) Ukraine in 1912. He once told me “Before I was seven years old, I lived in five different countries, without ever leaving my house.”

I think I know what you mean.

The key point here surely is that all French citizens have to regard the law of the state as taking precedence over religious law, should there be any conflict between the two, as we saw for example in banning headscarves in French schools. Hardline Muslims in the UK, and presumably also in France, are always banging on about the supremacy of sharia law. (And worryingly they have acquired some fellow travellers among the clerisy and judiciary in the UK, but not I suspect in france).

So if anyone wants to become a French citizen, it might be a handy test to ask them which law they regard as paramount, church or state. In France it is the state, and I think the French would have a good case for rejecting anyone for citizenship, from any religion, who put their church’s law first. (Interestingly something similar is currently being played out in Turkey).

“I lived in five different countries, without ever leaving my house.” – indeed – this struck me when I was in Slovakia. The idea is quite alien to us island dwellers.

I wonder what the wman’s actual nationality is. If she was Morroccan she would be French already, so she must be another nationality. It’s a bit unfair, because teh burqua etc are so visible that women will be easily identified, while most of the time it is the men who are the driving force behind it and they don’t have any visible signs of their relgious commitment(except for big bushy beards). I still think the prinicple that a society should be able to control who is allowed full rights within it is a valid one. It’s all about collectivity. as for those Middle Eastern Students who are studying engineering and medicine with teh intention of returning to their parents countries of origin. Good, anything that will modernise those countries and force the pace of change must be a good thing.

“If she was Morroccan she would be French already, so she must be another nationality.”
Are you sure? According to “le Monde” she is Morrocan.

Sue R : “I still think the prinicple that a society should be able to control who is allowed full rights within it is a valid one. It’s all about collectivity.”

I think this is right and what you are saying is basically what Michael Walzer has argued some time ago ( I think it is in a 1983 paper ) . His argument –which basically is an elaboration of what you are saying–is roughly that political community is the closest we can come to a world of common meanings. Language, history and culture come together to produce a collective consciousness on his view. However politics itself as a set of practices and institutions that give shape and content to such communities can be undermined if we reject their right to distribute the good of membership. It is to condemn them to become nothing more then neighbourhoods, random associations lacking any legally enforceable admissions policies. The probable result ( if I understand Walzer )of the free movement of individuals would be “casual aggregates” devoid of any internal cohesion and incapable of being a source of patriotic sentiments and solidarity. In a world neighbourhoods , membership would become meaningless.

The upshot ? We should recognize the political community’s right to regulate admission with a view to securing its cultural economic and political integrity.

If she was Morroccan she would be French already, so she must be another nationality.

I don’t think it matters. It’s true that individuals born to parents who were, in turn, born in French colonies before independence qualify, but Morocco was a protectorate.

@thomas k
“The question, that needs answering is: Why should France grant
this woman citizenship?”

Good question – I can not see how her having a passport would benefit France in any way what so ever.

His argument –which basically is an elaboration of what you are saying–is roughly that political community is the closest we can come to a world of common meanings.

Not least in France which, as far as I can see, there is no “French” ethnic group and at least 20% of the population are estimated to be an immigrant or grand/child of immigrants.

The Irie: “I’m well aware of the colonial brutalities my Grandparents generation meted out”

Oh dear, you really should take life more lightly. I was just teasing. Why on earth should you be ashamed for anything that happened in your grandparents generation? I think it is sad that you should be ashamed of the past greatness of your people, even if they weren’t always particularly benevolent. There have been worse. The British Empire contributed a great deal to the world in many ways.

I had a great uncle, myself, who did a stint in Palestine as a British soldier. He used to meet up with a female cousin of his, one of the Jewish ‘natives’. The Stern Group, or was it Begin’s Etzel, assumed they were romantically involved and she got threatening messages to stop meeting him ‘or else’. I don’t know how serious the threats were, or if they stopped meeting. That generation has all long gone and I’ve no one to ask.

And talking about wanting to ask ancestors about their stories, my great grandfather served under Zeev Jabotinsky in the Jewish Brigade of the British Army in WW1. Judging by my grandfather’s memoirs, Jabotinsky was an extremely charismatic character. I’d love to be able to sit down for a chat about Jabotinsky with my great grandfather. I actually knew his wife, my great grandmother, born in 1886. She used to tell me about her schooldays (The teacher used to beat them on the ears with a cane)

I’m intrigued, do the French sit around hair-shirting about their former empire, or the Dutch or the Portuguese? Or is it just the British?

Just an impression, Mrs. Ben, but metropolitan France fought long and bloodily hard for two significant parts of it (I had a flatmate whose father had served in Algeria), so talking about it will drag-up painful memories and not be such a risk-free gedankenexperiment for pampered academics whose only connexion was a grandfather who changed the tyres on a RAF jeep.

And that she still has some of the best tourist destinations, so blows a huge raspberry at us.

Mrs Ben – I think as usual we’re just ahead of the curve

This is an interesting discussion tho’ we’ve veered somewhat off topic. I can’t help but feel that this issue regarding this woman’s citizenship may not have arisen here in the UK. Why? Because revolutionary, republican, secular France has a principled guiding system of values which inform public decisions. Something we don’t have here. Maybe it’s time to think about what common values WE believe in, stand for, in our country.

Why on earth should you be ashamed for anything that happened in your grandparents generation?

Look up a Harry Enfield character called “Jurgen the German”.

That is TheIrie in a nutshell.

TheIrie has no self-worth whatsoever. He can only define himself in relationship to other people. He’s utterly pathetic.

John Robert Whitley says:

“This is an interesting discussion tho’ we’ve veered somewhat off topic. I can’t help but feel that this issue regarding this woman’s citizenship may not have arisen here in the UK. Why? Because revolutionary, republican, secular France has a principled guiding system of values which inform public decisions. Something we don’t have here. Maybe it’s time to think about what common values WE believe in, stand for, in our country.”

I agree entirely. We are in a very confused state in the UK as to what we are. Here are some possibilities:-

1. A constitutional monarchy that is a kind of hangover from the Empire. This is how Prince Charles would like to think of ourselves. Open to all faiths and exotic belief systems so long as they form part of the imperial mosaic.

2. Unit 2B of the European Union. We don’t have our own views, laws, constitution or anything really – we’re just part of the big E conglomerate and go along with whatever they say. Ted Heath, Chris Patten, Roy Jenkins, Shirley Williams and countless others have promoted this view.

3. A racially identified Britain, or England. Not much heard of these days. But one still hears cynical echoes in such classics as “British jobs for British workers” (Copyright G. Brown) and there is actually still a lot of sub-conscious identification with this Britain.

4. A Britain of citizens who share democratic values.

5. A devolved Britain – a Britain of parts with separate laws and conventions.

6. Ethnic/tribal Britain – Britain as a collection of different tribes defined by religion, race, language etc. – Muslims, Hindus, Afro-Caribbeans, Catholics, Protestants, Scots, Welsh, Irish, Poles, Arabs etc. etc.

Seems to be that we currently have all five of the above contending and being cynically manipulated by politicians.

I think we need to promote 4 and (carefully) 5. We need to agree our core values as citizens. We need to accept the idea of devolution of power. We need to abandon the imperial delusion. We need to do everything we can to prevent the uncivilised return to the tribal idea of politics as a zero-sum game.

The government has taken some tentative steps towards defining core values but is so PC-appeasing towards backward groups in our society that it has not gone further and made a real cultural advance.

If I may just add a last comment, there are some people here tearing their hairs off because France didn’t give her citizenship and what that means for equality, and liberty and whatnot.

But if you stop and think for a minute you will agree that: you couldn’t be this woman’s friend, nor her boyfriend, nor her coworker, nor you would like your children to befriend their children (remember that “male relatives” applies also to her children, who are her “guardians”), so why in God’s name, you would like her to be your fellow citizen?

That is what I think. Citizenship is also community, or you would be as happy living in the UK as living in Mongolia (given a similar economic situation), but of course you would be not.

typo
*to befriend her children*

“This strikes me as similar to our own ‘hijab hairdresser’ case. ”

No, it’s _nothing_ like the hijab hairdresser case. A butcher who refuses to handle a type of meat which makes up 20-30% of a shop’s output has nothing to do with a women who had no problem performing all functions of a hairdresser’s job.

P.

Just noted that Francois Holland (still Parti Socialiste General Secretary, though he is not standing again at the Party Conhress this year) approves of the decision not to grant French nationality to this woman. All seems to focus on her dependence on men, and lack of personal autonomy, that is, inability to recognise and practice sexual equality. I still think this is wrong: there are so many cases of people whose peronal mores are not secular, egalitarian, and so on, why is this person singled out? As she speaks French fluently surely that is a pretty important factor in showing some integration.

I repeat: this is a gift for the most reactionary islamcists (who think peopel are marked as Muslims and cannot be integrated into secular states), and their pathetically ingratiating Islamophile friends.

http://www.liberation.fr/actualite/societe/338543.FR.php

Nice new look for this site, mush more readable. Lots of interesting comments; as for this one:

““Why be a citizen of a country that you have no interest or knowledge of, but in fact live in complete alienation to?”

Benefits.

Seriously, if I were a Muslim and didn’t want to work, I’d move to London, claim persecution and get benefits. It’s free money rammed down my throat. Not only that, but the native Britons won’t care a whit if I start saying that their country should be more like the country I ‘escaped’ from. In fact, even if I get a bunch of my friends to blow up a train and kill 50+ people, they will defend me, and maybe even give me a bigger house.

Positive reinforcement for negative behavior? Psychologists say that that raises a child with many psychological problems. It also does the same for communities.”

How long before this site merges with the BNP’s blog?

“The French judiciary has much more sence than ours!”

Should some sort of spelling test form part of the citizenship requirements in this country?

“I still think this is wrong: there are so many cases of people whose peronal mores are not secular, egalitarian, and so on, why is this person singled out? ”

This line of thinking –I am sorry to say Andrew– keeps on repeating the error of assuming that Faiza M is in the same position as French citizens : because they are citizens their religious orientation does not disqualify them from being citizens. But Faiza M simply does not have such a right –citizenship confers on her– and so she is not being discriminated against or “singled out”; this sort of argument could be raised once she becomes a French citizen ,obviously, but until then it simply confuses the discussion ( by not making distinctions that should be made ).

Maybe an example will help : suppose that a family is trying to decide where to go for a holiday and they take a vote to settle the issue. Does Mrs Smith –a next door neighbour– have right to vote on this issue ? What you are claiming is that Mrs Smith and in fact all outsiders have the same right to vote regarding where the family in question should go for a holiday as the family members themselves. But this is false and excluding Mrs Smith from participating in the voting is not discrimination. The mistake is the claim that outsiders and insiders have same rights viz-a-viz voting, citizenship and so on. This is how the idea of discrimination against Faiza M gets purchase but the assumption its based on is false.

“Should some sort of spelling test form part of the citizenship requirements in this country?”

rwillmsen, Read your own 12:29 comment again for starters.

It could not happen here: in France they have a tradition based on the code-Napoleon. Here we have the farcical anglo-saxon common law tradition of old fart, er, Judge-made law. In the 1970’s Peter Cook was able to lampoon the Judge as a crusty old reactionary Tory. These days however the Judges are increasingly made up of a cohort coming to political (if not intellectual) maturity in the 60’s and 70’s and hence are a bunch of wet liberal apologists for islamic fascism and chav baiting. What would happen here in such a case? Immediate citizenship would be allocated and the subjects commitment to non-western and non-secular head dress championed as ‘celebrating difference’: then they would be directed down the avenue of a lucrative compensation lawsuit for their hurt feelings, er, human rights being abused….

What annoys me no end are teh people who hold dual nationality so that when they get into trouble in hot-spots abroad, our Government, who they have spent years slagging off has to tell its diplomats to get involved. There was a young Pakistani/British man who was banged up in Pakistan for murder and sentenced to death. I make no observation of the actual facts of the case and the reliability of the Pakistani legal system, I am just describing events. After quite a few years the Pakistanis decided to hang him. The victim’s family could have accepted blood money but they refused, saying they wanted this man to hang. Eventually, Prince Charles had to appeal for clemency for the man and he was released. His family still complained that the British Government hadn’t done enough. What if the fellow hadn’t had dual nationality? Who would have got him out of gaol then?

The basic principle on dual citizenship is from a country viewpoint is that a person can only be 100% citizen, other citizenships is not recognized.

If a person has UK and Pakistani citizenship he/she is 100% Pakistani in Pakistan and vice versa. Only one citizenship is recognized in each country. In principle the UK citizenship is null and void in Pakistan and vice versa. Officially there is absolutely nothing UK can claim on the Pakistani regime on behalf of the UK citizenship.

One can see the benefit for dual citizenship for some individuals, e.g. in a case when one country refuse to abandon a persons citizenship. Otherwise it’s a very strange construction where people can be 100% citizen in several countries, one can’t be half or a quarter citizen in any country.

“A butcher who refuses to handle a type of meat which makes up 20-30% of a shop’s output has nothing to do with a women who had no problem performing all functions of a hairdresser’s job.”

Eh… clearly a male perspective but still nonsense. The hairdressing saloon in question advertised itself as ‘funky and urban’. Pictures of the ‘headscarf wearer’ show a tightly bound head and neck – not just a loosely draped scarf. Visual message: Hair is an instrument of the devil – drives men to ‘lust’ don’t y’know! Forget ‘crowning glory’ or an asset to personal appearance.

Clearly such a person could not ‘model’ (in her Being) any interest in hair care and styling! To employ staff parading visible personal beliefs which are in direct contradiction to the purpose for which the business exists is tantamount to commercial suicide.

Sue R: Despite admitting she had had applications turned down by 25 other hairdressing establishments, the headscarf wearer was awarded £4,000 compensation for ‘hurt feelings’ … the original claim was for £15,000; raised to £35,000 when the case was made public.

Viva la France!

Thank you, I just wanted to give a greeting and tell you I like your website very much.

This is the most absurd thing that I have ever read. All knew that the French are capable of idiotic actions, but this is just moronic!

What’re they gonna do next, deny citizenship to people who have a beard?

Jawed Iqbal: “This is the most absurd thing that I have ever read. All knew that the French are capable of idiotic actions, but this is just moronic!
What’re they gonna do next, deny citizenship to people who have a beard?
I think there is a big difference between a burqa and a beard, Jawed. There is also a big difference between a burqa and a hijab.
The face is very important in communication between human beings – facial expression, being able to see not only the eyes but also the mouth, as it moves, is a central part of how we relate and understand each other.

Although I don’t really have an opinion in this matter, and it’s none of my business anyway, because I’m not French – I don’t think it’s at all absurd, idiotic or moronic for a sovereign state to want to debate the burqa issue and make decisions about how to deal with it.

If this woman is making an open declaration of non-communication and non-contact with the world outside her immediate family, the French people have a right to think it over and decide if they want her or not. If she is saying: Take me in and I will give nothing back to the French people but mouths to feed, while you, the French taxpayer, will supply me and my children with free health, education, and welfare services (at least until the males I produce are old enough to participate in the workforce) – is it so absurd and moronic for the French not to be particularly enthusiastic about accepting the deal?

Hi,

It is mistaken to believe that most women who wear burqa/hijab/jilbaab are ‘oppressed’ and doing so only on the command of their husbands/parents etc. Some are. But not most.

I guess it is well within the right of any human being, to say to me that they would like and respect me better if i ‘took it off’. But as many women in this world are perfectly happy with their level of ‘dress’ or ‘undress’. May I state that I am perfecty happy with mine. Thanks.

There exists a lack of respect of each other in every society on this earth. Some societies are better at describing themselves as champions of or having a monopoly tolerance/ respect/eqaul rights/democracy/good, but the reality on the ground for many ‘others than us’s’ is different. I guess after 18 years I have learnt to accept that there is no perfect society. What never fails to amaze me is the hypocrisy.

‘I’m not predujiced’, ‘I’m not racist’, ‘I’m not stingy’, ‘I’m not impatient’, ‘I’m not oppressive’ we say -’but THEY ARE, those strangers!

‘I’m good’, ‘I’m fair’, ‘I’m educated’, ‘I’m modern’, ‘I’m free’, ‘I’m clean’, ‘I’m intelligent’ we say- ‘but THEY’RE NOT those weirdos.

Almost, if not all human beings have pearls of good in them if we can be bothered to look beyond the exterior appearance.

It is easy to sit here behind my computer screen and celebrate how the French have got one over on that ’strange, ignorant, backward lady’ who does not deserve ‘our privileges’. But I can bet my botton dollar that if I got to know her, I could well find that she is patient, generous, kind etc. But I guess that does not count for anything these days.

‘She wears a burqa, this means there is no good in her whatsoever’.
I advice myself first before anybody else, to train ourselves to be fair and just. It takes courage.

with love, Umm Rashidah

Umm rashida, No one is saying that teh woman is stupid, nasty, evil etc, all we are saying is that a community of people should have the right to decide who is allowed to join it. Whether she wears the veil voluntarily or not, is not an issue (for me), she is still rejecting any participation in mainstream society and disrespecting those people who struggled and died to create a functioning society.

I know of my right to vote. But I don’t. Like my citizens of Europe, of whatever race creed. That does not mean I am disrespecting people who struggled and died to create a functioning society.

Sorry, rushed typing:

I know of my right to vote. But I don’t. Like many citizens of Europe, of whatever race or creed. (It’s a reality) That does not mean I am disrespecting people who struggled and died to create a functioning society.

with love

If there is ’solid proof’, not conjecture or guess work, that a stay at home mum who wears the burqa and listens to her husband (as long as he has not advised her to commit a crime) has no contribution to make to society, or has no right to live in ANY society, I will willingly and submissively accept your case.

I agree with you on one point however: a community of peolple has the right to decide who they choose to live with. But they should at least be truthful and give the real reasons for the decision, and not try to shift the blame ‘the other’. I can show you many a submissive European woman!

still with love

Yes, and that is why in the 70s feminism was a big deal in Europe and America and why Equal Rights legislation was introduced. I think though you will find that any European woman will agree that all people are equal and that slave ownership is a bad thing. I hope you do not find this alienating but I have to speak as I find.

Thank you for your concern, I don’t find your ideas alienating at all, I’m used to them, they are quite widespread.

If Faiza is ‘equal’ to all other people as we claim, why don’t we want her as our neighbour.

I read: ‘all people who look like us, speak like us, agree with us in everything’ are equal to us. This is the truth as I find it.

with love

It is mistaken to believe that most women who wear burqa/hijab/jilbaab are ‘oppressed’ and doing so only on the command of their husbands/parents etc. Some are. But not most.

They’re mentally ill retards who have been brainwashed into thinking that every single man is an uncontrollable ragepot of hormones who will ravage them there and then if he sees so much as a nostril.

How the fuck isn’t that utterly depraved and sick?

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not fighting for her right to French citizenship. Hopefully she will realise that her happiness and survival in this world is not dependant on it. She is a wife, a mum, a freind, a daughter, a human being and and how she carries out these roles will define her. The same goes for any man. He is a husband, a father , a freind, a son, a human being etc. Thats what we all are.

If she divorced her husband, bought some jeans, drank red wine, ate frogs legs, and was the life and soul of every party, would she then be given citizenship? Probably yes. Would that make her happy? I don’t know. I know it would make me (burqa wearing lady) very sad.

with love

Sue, I’m logging off now, it was nice posting with you. You did not insult my intelligence or swear (even though I am a burqa wearing lady). May continue tomorrow.

with love

Umm Raschid: If you are still reading this, why do you have to counterpose such an extreme scenario? Ofcourse she doesn’t have to eat frogs’ legs or drink red wine or wear shortsleeved dresses to be a French citizen. In my opinion, she merely needs to support the aims of teh French Revolution of ‘Liberty, Equality and Fraternity’. I expect you will say that she does, it’s just that her sort of liberty, equality and fraternity is different. That’s you opinion and of course you are entitled to hold it.

“But I can bet my botton dollar that if I got to know her, I could well find that she is patient, generous, kind etc. But I guess that does not count for anything these days.”

The issue is exactly that I, or any men, and most women, will never get to know her.
Because she is willingly shunning any contact with the rest of society, or her “male guardians” are dissuading her from it.

Good morning!
If being ‘reclusive’ qualifies you to be denied citizenship anywhere in this world, then I guess I have to be included with her, My life inovolves basically ‘to and from work’, ‘necessary shopping,’ ‘housework’, ‘necessary classes’, occasional essesntial visits e.g births, marriages, funerals, sick people, or greeting freinds relatives I haven’t seen for a while. I’ve been like that in Europe and in my country of birth. (It may sound like a strange lifestyle for many, but I find I have little time for anything else, and it keeps me sane and focused)

I believe what could be used as a proof against me is whether my social conduct could be proved to be illegal.

I have yet to learn where a lack of/ or little social contact is illegal or unacceptable.

This discussion could go on for ages, I guess unless we know what the French governmenet is asking of her and what she is failling to do, we won’t be in a position to judge. Did she fail the citizenship test etc? Is there one? Can she retake?

I sat a citizenship exam, and passed. I can hardly remember anything
that I studied (except probably some fact about needing X number of signatories if you wanted to stand for office etc).

It didn’t change me as a person, it didn’t make me more European, and it would not prevent me from criminal/anti-social behaviour if I was already inclined that way. It took me 4 minuets to do, tick, tick, tick. Any criminal could pass it.

Maybe theres more to the story.

The citizenship exam does have a value for anyone someone with a weak/ non-existant grasp of the language. Learning the local language is always a good thing . It makes you more effective in social situations. It doesn’t however in my opinion, make you a better person.