A 32 year old Moroccan, married to a French citizen and mother to three children in France, was refused French nationality for adopting a radical practice of her religion, which is socially incompatible with the basic values of France, notably the principle of gender equality.
For the first time in France the Council of State took into account the level of religious practice to determine a foreigner's ability to integrate. Until now, in the Muslim community, only people considered connected to fundamentalist movements were denied French nationality, and none had appealed
In the case of Faiza M., her clothes and private life were used to confirm the refusal of French nationality. She had appealed the 2005 decision, which refused her citizenship due to lack of assimilation, citing the religious freedom guaranteed by the constitution and saying that since she had arrived in France in 2000 she had never sought to challenge the basic values of the Republic.
Government commissioner Emmanuelle Prada-Bordenave pointed to meetings which the couple had with the social services and the police. On three occasions Faiza M. showed up with the robes of a woman from the Arabian peninsula, with a veil covering her face and leaving only a slit for her eyes.
The couple had admitted that they are Salafi, a movement of Islam which advocates a literal and rigorous reading of the Koran, following the lifestyle of Mohammed's original followers.
Faiza M. had confirmed that she was not veiled when she lived in Morocco and that she had adopted the dress after arriving in France at the request of her husband, and that she does so more out of habit than conviction.
The government commissioner says that her statement show that she leads leads a secluded life, cut off from French society. She does not know about laïcité or the right to vote and she lives in total submission to the men in her family. Faiza M. appears to think that this normal and doesn't think of contesting this submission. Prada-Bordenave says this is indicative of the lack of adherence to the basic values of French society.
At the same time, Faiza M. speaks French, which is a criteria for citizenship, and during her pregnancy was checked by a male gynecologist.
Faiza M. cannot appeal the decision and may reapply for citizenship when she had shown that she endorses the values of the Republic.
Source: Le Monde (French)
7 comments:
Wow. For the first time in recent memory, a reason to applaud the French.
Actually, France has the most efficient counter-terrorism strategy anyywhere but Israel and China. So there's that to applaud them for. Of course, they've let the situaton get out of hand, so this is only a natural response. I applauded them last week: http://islamineurope.blogspot.com/2008/07/france-us-human-rights-group-attacks.html for dealing appropriately with terrorism, when Human Rights Watch mistakenly put inbred, malignantly narcissistic, Nazi terrorist cult members from a shame culture under the heading of "human," when actually they've been indoctrinated, inbred, and un/miseducated to the point of being violent, freedom/civilization-hating zombie subhumans.
It sounds like she wasn't even wearing a burqa, but rather a niqab: "a veil covering her face and leaving only a slit for her eyes." That's even more awesome. Of course, denying any Muslim citizenship on the basis of affiliation with a "fundamnetalist movements" would require denying all Muslims citizenship on that basis, since Islam is inherently fundamentalist and cannot ne changed, reformed, or reinterpreted, since 'bit'a' = heresy/apostacy.
I don't know how it works over there, but in the US if you're married to someone with citizenship, you get citizenship, which is horrible, absolutely unconstitutional, and downright self-destructive, especially when dealing with people who pimp away their daughters so as to intentionally ghettoize their country of immigration. I applaud France and any other country with enough foresight and fairness not engage in this practice.
I also applaud France for striving to not ghettoize their country. I firmly believe that immigration to countries in the top 50 of the Human Development Index MUST be limited to people from countries in the top 50 of the HDI. Even the brain-drain folks from the 2nd- and 3rd-world countries really can't hold their own in free world societies, as my grad school experience has more than proven to me over and over. Even if they're able to compete, they still can't assimilate. The only exception to this is India, but the only Indian immigrants to Western countries are those who are able to earn work visas on the basis of merit, rather than a green card based on political asylum or sheer charity. They've earned their citizenship before they get on the boat. I really hope that the US will soon follow France's example. I also hope that Mexico will make the cut soon.
This almost makes up for fining Brigitte Bardot for telling the truth, expressing her freedom of speech, and standing up for human and animal rights.
Dang! I forgot to quite my man Geert WIlders, who said: "It is not acceptable for people to completely cover themselves on the street. It threatens public order and security. Plus it is a terrifying sight and only increases the cleft between natives and foreigners." He's right. I'm glad France agrees with him.
He also said this: “This is our country. We’re the bosses. These are our values. If you want to come and stay that‘s okay, but only if you adhere to our values, our principles, our laws, and our Constitution…We must stop being tolerant toward people who show no tolerance toward us.”
I was making pdfs for my Cafepress shop today.
I feel sorry for the French, talk about the lack of religios freedom in muslim countries? Well the superioir Western societies are not really setting a very good example for other countries to follow are they? This should be no suprise most countries are only happy adopting values which they are comfortable with. PRACTICE WHAT YOU PREACH...and don't be surprised when the chickens come home to roost when you dont.
When the freedoms of two people clash then one has to give way. The burqa is a symbol of oppression. It shows the woman to be a second class citizen. It is similar to a slave walking around in chains.
Women should protest against this form of oppression. They have fought for hundreds of years for equal rights and now some people want to remove them in the name of religious freedom. How far does religious freedom extend. Are we to have the flogging of adulterers in the name of religiouds freedom?
Their message was "assimilate or get out." There is nothing remotely hypocritical about that. That is the definition of reasonable. I think I made a good case as to why those things are mortally offensive in the "Veil in Europe" section, freakymango. The fact that Muslim women don't regard those things the same way I do creeps me out to the core of my being, especially since they actually did feel the same way 30 years ago. It's a symbol of slavery and genocide. It says "I hate freedom, democracy and human dignity, especially for us subhuman women, but I sure love killing Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Christians, and any other civilized people." If that's not incompatible with free-world values, nothing is. Mein Kampf is banned in Europe. Can you march down the Champs-Elysees in a big swastika?
The French are idiots.
First, they allow massive immigration from Muslim countries and do nothing to stop it. Then, when things get ugly, they pull a stunt like this, which will have no effect whatsoever on the "Muslim" problem.
Those of you who think banning religious clothing will in anyway protect a society are ignorant of how our cherished freedoms work. Using a Burka, or Hijab, or any such clothing as a symbol to attack is a horrible breach of our values. There are hundreds of equally as offensive things that should then be used as reasons to deny citizenship ... including Che Guavara T's.
First, stop the insane immigration policies. Then, agressively root out law breakers. France allows entire sections of cities to go unpoliced because they don't want confrontation ... so they pick on this women to make it look like they're doing something. Big Deal!
It's typical French cowardice. They'll let "youths" burn cars by the thousands and not deal with them harshly ... yet ban this women. Imagine a bunch of "youths" running around in Texas burning cars and shooting shotguns at the cops ... I wonder what would happen?
Give your heads a shake folks ... many of you here have little understanding of the value of our freedoms, and how to protect them. "Clothing" will not kill yu anymore than a gun will ... it's the person who kills. The French have created a monster, and are now combating it with puffy cowardice ... and whispers of fascism ... what'd they think when they let millions of Muslims immigrate?
Post a Comment