In yet another confrontation between France and the Muslim community, the government has refused to give a woman citizenship because she is too submissive to Islam and to men. In a June ruling, the Council of State found that the Moroccan woman’s religious beliefs are incompatible with French citizenship. Notably, the woman speaks good French, is married to a French national, has lived in the country since 2000, has three children born in France, and has never been arrested for a crime.
In its ruling, the Council of State found that “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.”
The woman, 32, wears a black burqa covering everything but her eyes. Previously, in 2005, she was denied citizenship for “insufficient assimilation”.
For the full story, click here
Well I kind of like the concept of standards beyond just learning the language and passing the test. If the absence of servility were the rule here we would have 535 less temporary citizens of D.C. almost immediately.
This is a good start.
What happened to freedom of religion in France? I don’t care if the woman’s religous beliefs are not like mine. It sounds like she would be a perfect candidate for citizenship, if she wasn’t a strict Muslim. I hope she can appeal that unjust decision.
Rafflaw, even if she was considered a slave to her husband, she still had a right, right………….rrrriiiiigggghhhhhhtttttt.
Russ,
You are really good with the automatic writing, but can you be a slave when you voluntarily accept your position with your spouse? France seems very concerned about its equality of the sexes, but forgets freedom of religion. I suggest that they should be equally concerned about both.
The French are starting to morph into Borgs!
Jill,
I don’t understand the reference to “Borgs”. I am a little slow on the weekends!
She should be free to live out her believe. American would be up in arms if we(ex:Christian) was force to practice Muslim believes that go against the Christian believes.
moniqueth3intern:
We should also be up in arms if we were forced to practice Christian beliefs!
Hi rafflaw,
The Borg from Star Trek-”we will assimilate” was there favorite line!
Amen to that brother Mespo!
Jill,
Thanks for the clarification.
I don’t get it. She appears to have many qualities that would make her a good citizen. Her only fault seems to be that she is not sufficiently subservient to a government which apparently feels that it should be able to dictate her relationship to her husband and her religion. Personally, I have no desire to be subservient to either religion or men but I have no use for a government so authoritarian that it will not allow me to be subservient if I choose.
marie:
That is an interesting take on the matter. Do you think that subservience is compatible with self-governance? Can a democracy survive if part or most of its population is willing to relinquish its liberty on social or religious grounds to an elder or church official? That’s the problem I see with your philosophy. Hiding in a subservient role afraid to voice or defend your opinion seems to be the mindset of those least equipped to handle freedom. Assuming everyone is ready or desirous of freedom was this President’s downfall, and I fear that assumption underlies your comment.
It would seem that in France’s push to become non-traditional and equal opportunity, that they have forgotten the very essence of those ideals. If she wants to use her freedom to remain in her chosen religion with its rules and practices then she should be allowed and her choice should not affect the state of her citizenship. I think their government is shooting itself in the foot with this incident…
Mespo,
I can agree with most of your statement, but if the party makes an informed decision to practice the tenets of a religion, it should not have any bearing on their citizenship application. I think that even in a democracy you are going to have people who make uninformed decisions, and some are not even in the White House or Congress. You are right to say that many people jumped on Bush’s attack them over there mentality because they were not thinking it through rationally. I think you and Marie are really saying the same thing. As long as most of the electorate and their representatives in the government are making informed and intelligent decisions, it should not matter what religion I or someone else is practicing or whether I choose to not practice a religion. Now, if the example is a religion where dangerous drugs or rituals actually endanger the participants or others, then you might have an argument. Personally, I probably lean toward your concern over her subservience, but going any further would violate the Separation of Church and State if this was an American example.
it’s really not fair
That’s just weird. It links in with the French way of dividing church and state I guess. For this woman practicing her religion is too important, feels the French Government - which obviously wants to come first…
This is in line with one of the main arguments that kept slaves, women, and those who owned no land from voting back in 1776- dependence. The theory was that anyone too dependent upon another couldn’t be trusted to vote since the person they were dependent on would simply tell them who to vote for and gain an unfair advantage at the voting booth (i.e. the landlord who requires all his tenants to vote for candidate x now gets 11 votes, instead of one). We were able to do away with these dependency arguments as women and slaves gained independence from their husbands through the law. It is interesting to see France enforce this kind of idea now.
http://invitationtotruth.wordpress.com
The French government’s attempt to limit this women’s religous beliefs or practices is similar to the neocon argument that America is a Christian nation. Limiting a country to just one religion harms all of the believers in every other religion to the detriment of the country and the individual.
rafflaw:
I agree with your concern about the government screening religions, but what if a religion had as its main tenet the sanctity of keeping slaves (even the Christian Bible ok’s this practice) and abusing children. Would we be so tolerant, and if not, where is the line?
totaltarnsformation:
“We were able to do away with these dependency arguments as women and slaves gained independence from their husbands through the law.”
************
The distinction you raise is a good one. How could France maintain freedom of religion and pass a law stating that all Muslims women must be emancipated from the control of their husbands as dictated by Sharia Law? It is a connumdrum not faced by Lincoln in freeing the slaves since by that time all but the most radical religionists agreed that slave holding was immoral. The suffragettes were likewise not constricted by religious tenets except among the most reactionary dogmatists. Denying citizenship may be the most workable solution since it is my no means a right, merely a privilege.
Kudos to France!!
Here in the USA whenever I see a woman with the headscarf - a symbol of voluntary servitude and second-classness - I have to resist the urge to rip the darned thing off her head and demand that SHE demand equality.
It is refreshing to see that France is not so politically-correct that it will allow voluntary servitude among its citizens.
Now, the next step is to find a way to export all of the muslims in France before they burn the entire nation. After all, haven’t some of the most ‘revered’ mullahs decreed that democracy is incompatible with I-Slam? And after they’ve paved the way, perhaps the USA can follow?
One can only hope - - unless the obamessiah, B-Hussein, takes up residence in the White House. And then we won’t have even hope. The obamessiah will bring us change, all right - - the same kind of change that Stalin, Hitler and Castro brought, and with the assistance of those who are supporting him - Hamas, Hezbollah, and his jihadist relatives.
PJ:
“the same kind of change that Stalin, Hitler and Castro brought, …”
*************
No, PJ, we got that type of change in 2000 though the “changer” was sort of a JV authoritarian. We’re trying to get back to normal.
mespo727272:
My sympathies for that “wrong rut” you seem to be stuck in. But cheer up: you might yet get “right” with a little help from your friends.
To be really fair about it, the French ought to revoke the citizenship of her husband. Someone in France needs to take the responsibility and initiative to “radicalize” this woman to the idea of individual freedom of choice separate from any religion that tries to control it’s members.
PJ:
Doubtful. Most of my friends can think.
The French government has made a conscious decision that due to their secular tenants, this particular religious belief is incompatible with citizenship. This woman is more than free to practice her beliefs, its just that doing so disqualifies her from citizenship.
I think its a fair and equitable decision. She has no right of entitlement. Liberal democracies shouldn’t be criticized for establishing fair and reasonable requirements that restrict enfranchisement to those whose beliefs are diametric to the existence of those societies.
I also believe the article notes this is a final decision without appeal.
I guess the French should toss out all the Nuns too. Their subservience to their “husband” is also sickening and those headscarves they wear - whenever I see a woman with the headscarf - a symbol of voluntary servitude and second-classness (sic) - I have to resist the urge to rip the darned thing off her head and demand that SHE demand equality. I guess it’s more important how I think women should dress than how they think they should dress. And why stop there, dresses and pants are pretty bad too, let’s tear that off of them too and make them walk around in underwear or better yet naked. I love the freedom of the women I see in the strip clubs and on the street corners at night.
It’s a good thing that I live in a country that would throw me in jail if I assaulted a woman in such a way.
i’m a married muslim woman. why does me loving my husband and working with him in my home, have to do with some judge?
personally all democrazies or whatever can take their lil citizen papers and shove it!
the so called free world is ONLY for a few, not all!
their so called freedoms are just dreams, and myths.
free to drink beer and have sex with other peoples wives or whatever, but oooo no dont have a happy marriage, with two people knowing and enjoying their roles as parents….oooo NO!
this judge is acting as if her husband commands her to go stripp at night…o wait scratch that!
he’s acting as if the husband commmands her to go out at night and cut up peoples tires, or commmands her to go out and go beat up homeless people, or commands her to go out and steal money from old folks.
—————-you haters of muslims need to get a life! ——-and stop trying to control peoples home lifes and THEIR lifes for that matter. just because someone lives in a certain country doesnt mean the govt gets to CONTINUE TO TAKE MORE FROM THE PEOPLE.
dont OWE the govt NOTHING!!!
ACTING AS IF THEY KNOW THE MUSLIM WOMAN!!!
HA~~~~~~~!
Aminah; You’re forgetting something: A Muslim woman can’t decide how she wants to live and it’s unfair to let her Muslim husband ask her to live in a certain way, but a Christian male knows what’s best for Muslim women. So the problem is not having to submissive to a man, it’s that the man is Muslim.
zakimar:
The problem isn’t the man or the woman. The problem is the 12th Century belief system of subservience to just about anything- a fairy tale religion, your spouse,even your country. One of the tenets of democracy is the necessity of standing up for yourself–in the voting booth, in public forums,or even in the streets in peaceful assembly. That is skill apparently some observant Muslims can’t or won’t master and hence their exclusion from French society. I applaud the French for having logical standards consistent with their philosophy of government and wonder aloud why many (not all) in Muslim communities find it so difficult to throw off the oppression of centuries of religious and cultural brainwashing. Though sometimes cliche’, it is a tautology that freedom doesn’t come free.
As for Aminah, I find it ironic and somewhat amusing that her vivid denouncement of the government would land her in prison in some Muslim countries–and that might be the best she could hope for–but would never happen in France or the US. That of course would be significant “control of peoples home life,” now wouldn’t it?