Denied Citizenship in France

[Perknose]

Good for France. I agree with the bolded below.

It'd be nearly impossible to get such a ruling here.

NYT sub link.

LA VERRIÈRE, France ? When Faiza Silmi applied for French citizenship, she worried that her French was not quite good enough or that her Moroccan upbringing would pose a problem.

Fadela Amara, left, France?s urban affairs minister and a Muslim, backs a ruling to deny citizenship to a Muslim woman.

?I would never have imagined that they would turn me down because of what I choose to wear,? Ms. Silmi said, her hazel eyes looking out of the narrow slit in her niqab, an Islamic facial veil that is among three flowing layers of turquoise, blue and black that cover her body from head to toe.

But last month, France?s highest administrative court upheld a decision to deny citizenship to Ms. Silmi, 32, on the ground that her ?radical? practice of Islam was incompatible with French values like equality of the sexes.

It was the first time that a French court had judged someone?s capacity to be assimilated into France based on private religious practice, taking laïcité ? the country?s strict concept of secularism ? from the public sphere into the home.

The case has sharpened the focus on the delicate balance between the tradition of Republican secularism and the freedom of religion guaranteed under the French Constitution, and how that balance may be shifting. Four years ago, a law banned religious clothing in public schools. Earlier this year, a court in Lille annulled a marriage on request of a Muslim husband whose wife had lied about being a virgin. (The government later demanded a review of the court decision.)

So far, citizenship has been denied on religious grounds in France only when applicants were believed to be close to fundamentalist groups.

The ruling on Ms. Silmi has received almost unequivocal support across the political spectrum, including among many Muslims. Fadela Amara, the French minister for urban affairs, called Ms. Silmi?s niqab ?a prison? and a ?straitjacket.?

?It is not a religious insignia but the insignia of a totalitarian political project that promotes inequality between the sexes and is totally lacking in democracy,? Ms. Amara, herself a practicing Muslim of Algerian descent, told the newspaper Le Parisien in an interview published Wednesday.

François Hollande, the leader of the opposition Socialist Party, called the ruling ?a good application of the law,? while Jacques Myard, a conservative lawmaker elected in the district where Ms. Silmi lives, demanded that face-covering veils be outlawed.

 

[LumbergTech]

can't say i agree, this seems more like bigotry to me..

i actually agree with the idea that its oppressive , however, many people are born into religions and don't even think about stuff like that necessarily..

i could easily say the same thing about many other religious groups

it seems a little unfair to target one person and make them pay for ones negative views of a religion

 

[blackangst1]

:thumbsup:

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: LumbergTech
it seems a little unfair to target one person and make them pay for ones negative views of a religion

Not a negative view of the religion, but a negative view of the practice. Not all muslims subject their wives to this, you know.

To put it another way, if, in public, I made my wife/wives crawl around on all fours while leashed, and made them periodically bark, becuase this was the traditional way of my religion, should that be a religiously protected practice?

The person whose comment I bolded is Muslim herself, btw. Did you catch that?

What this case illustrates for me is the sometimes tricky interstice between "freedom" and "cultural values". In this case, I applaud the French. But would I want our state to have the same power knowing that meant they could theoretically turn it on me?

Following, you may here a lot of passionately pat answers: "Yes!" or "No!"

To me, there is no pat, overarching, one word answer.

Just in this case, my heart makes me side with the French.

 

[brandonb]

I'm not sure how to take the ruling.

On one hand, I agree with it for obvious reasons.

On the other hand, she is just following her culture, and her culture says to do that. Its like saying a Catholic should be denied immigration because they don't use birth control and that is a bad thing due to over population, etc. Even if they plan on having more kids or not.

But, in the end, France has its own culture, and immigrants need to adapt to the French culture or find a country more suitable to the immigrant.

Thats why we have countries to begin with so like minded people can band together with others like them. It goes against "diversity is strength", but I have a feeling that sentiment is being exposed as a farce, as it probably should be. Usually the strongest countries survive because of the single collective thought. Strife usually happens when several different kind of people are stuck in the same landmass... Thats usually how wars start.

 

[Aimster]

Muslims do not cover their faces..

only Saudis and their extremist sects that spread to parts of Afghanistan and Pakistan (AKA the Taliban) follow this B.S.

Ban it. It's pure crap

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Perknose
Good for France. I agree with the bolded below.

It'd be nearly impossible to get such a ruling here.

NYT sub link.

LA VERRIÈRE, France ? When Faiza Silmi applied for French citizenship, she worried that her French was not quite good enough or that her Moroccan upbringing would pose a problem.

Fadela Amara, left, France?s urban affairs minister and a Muslim, backs a ruling to deny citizenship to a Muslim woman.

?I would never have imagined that they would turn me down because of what I choose to wear,? Ms. Silmi said, her hazel eyes looking out of the narrow slit in her niqab, an Islamic facial veil that is among three flowing layers of turquoise, blue and black that cover her body from head to toe.

But last month, France?s highest administrative court upheld a decision to deny citizenship to Ms. Silmi, 32, on the ground that her ?radical? practice of Islam was incompatible with French values like equality of the sexes.

It was the first time that a French court had judged someone?s capacity to be assimilated into France based on private religious practice, taking laïcité ? the country?s strict concept of secularism ? from the public sphere into the home.

The case has sharpened the focus on the delicate balance between the tradition of Republican secularism and the freedom of religion guaranteed under the French Constitution, and how that balance may be shifting. Four years ago, a law banned religious clothing in public schools. Earlier this year, a court in Lille annulled a marriage on request of a Muslim husband whose wife had lied about being a virgin. (The government later demanded a review of the court decision.)

So far, citizenship has been denied on religious grounds in France only when applicants were believed to be close to fundamentalist groups.

The ruling on Ms. Silmi has received almost unequivocal support across the political spectrum, including among many Muslims. Fadela Amara, the French minister for urban affairs, called Ms. Silmi?s niqab ?a prison? and a ?straitjacket.?

?It is not a religious insignia but the insignia of a totalitarian political project that promotes inequality between the sexes and is totally lacking in democracy,? Ms. Amara, herself a practicing Muslim of Algerian descent, told the newspaper Le Parisien in an interview published Wednesday.

François Hollande, the leader of the opposition Socialist Party, called the ruling ?a good application of the law,? while Jacques Myard, a conservative lawmaker elected in the district where Ms. Silmi lives, demanded that face-covering veils be outlawed.

Maybe you should have bolded (and read) a different part of the article...like the quote from the woman herself. She CHOOSES to wear the Islamic facial veil, who are you (or the French) to tell her how to express her religious beliefs? Obviously you have to draw a line as to what's allowable, but it seems to me that practices that are voluntary and don't hurt anyone should always be allowed.

I am not opposed to fighting Islamic extremism, but I think many people (including you, in this case) are too ready to embrace bigotry because it's the easiest way to feel like you're fighting something. It's a lot easier to deny a Muslim woman citizenship because you don't like the way she dresses than it is to try to root out violent extremists, similar to how PETA protesters always throw paint on rich old ladies wearing fur coats instead of bikers wearing leather.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: brandonb
I'm not sure how to take the ruling.

On one hand, I agree with it for obvious reasons.

On the other hand, she is just following her culture, and her culture says to do that. Its like saying a Catholic should be denied immigration because they don't use birth control and that is a bad thing due to over population, etc. Even if they plan on having more kids or not.

But, in the end, France has its own culture, and immigrants need to adapt to the French culture or find a country more suitable to the immigrant.

Thats why we have countries to begin with so like minded people can band together with others like them. It goes against "diversity is strength", but I have a feeling that sentiment is being exposed as a farce, as it probably should be. Usually the strongest countries survive because of the single collective thought. Strife usually happens when several different kind of people are stuck in the same landmass... Thats usually how wars start.

History suggests otherwise. The most xenophobic cultures seem to have the most problems on the world stage, while countries that embrace different ideas tend to be all the stronger for it. Were your theory accurate, Japan would be the most powerful country on Earth and the United States would be a footnote.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Aimster
Muslims do not cover their faces..

only Saudis and their extremist sects that spread to parts of Afghanistan and Pakistan (AKA the Taliban) follow this B.S.

Ban it. It's pure crap

There's a mature attitude. "There's something I don't agree with, so we should ban it!" If how someone practices their religion harms you, then I agree it's worth making a law about it. But here in the Western world, people have (or should have) a right to practice however they wish as long as it doesn't interfere with the rights of anyone else. What's funny about this is that your narrow-minded attitude is more appropriate to a country like Saudi Arabia than France.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: LumbergTech
it seems a little unfair to target one person and make them pay for ones negative views of a religion

Not a negative view of the religion, but a negative view of the practice. Not all muslims subject their wives to this, you know.

To put it another way, if, in public, I made my wife/wives crawl around on all fours while leashed, and made them periodically bark, becuase this was the traditional way of my religion, should that be a religiously protected practice?

The person whose comment I bolded is Muslim herself, btw. Did you catch that?

What this case illustrates for me is the sometimes tricky interstice between "freedom" and "cultural values". In this case, I applaud the French. But would I want our state to have the same power knowing that meant they could theoretically turn it on me?

Following, you may here a lot of passionately pat answers: "Yes!" or "No!"

To me, there is no pat, overarching, one word answer.

Just in this case, my heart makes me side with the French.

I think a good definition of a conservative is someone who is currently in the majority. At least you acknowledge that things like this set a terrible precedent, but I don't think you've really thought it all the way through. Were this to happen in America, it would be a pretty open and shut case of the government violating the 1st amendment...yet you support it. Given our increasingly secular government here in the US, how long do you think it would be before ranting lunatics like Bill O'Reilly really DO have something to complain about with regard to the government trying to kill off religion?

 

[babylon5]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: brandonb

Japan would be the most powerful country on Earth and the United States would be a footnote.

Depends on how you define "powerful". US is more powerful not just over Japan, but all other countries because of military. I don't think diversity has anything to do with it.

And Japan is also part of G8, just like US.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: babylon5

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: brandonb

Japan would be the most powerful country on Earth and the United States would be a footnote.

Depends on how you define "powerful". US is more powerful not just over Japan, but all other countries because of military. I don't think diversity has anything to do with it.

And Japan is also part of G8, just like US.

Fine, define "powerful" in such a way that Japan's homogeneous and xenophobic culture has produced a "stronger" country than the United States' open embrace of immigrants and other cultures?

I don't think culture is the deciding factor either, but I was responding to brandonb's post that suggested that being a bunch of goose-stepping isolationists is the way to get a "strong" country.

 

[1prophet]

After the illegal FLDS raid in Texas is America in a position to judge other countries dealings with minority religious groups?

 

[Aimster]

That's a barbaric version of Islam the Saudis practice.

9/11 Hijackers? They practiced the same belief system as the Saudis. Did Iraqis? NOPE. We invaded the wrong country

Taliban? Yes. They practice the same crap that the Saudis practice.

Women in Saudi Arabia cannot do anything. They are not allowed to drive.
They are not allowed outside without a male escort.
They walk around covering everything but their eyes because their backward twisted culture has women as slaves.

I have no problem with women in Islam who want to cover their head. Whatever. Covering everything but the eyes is slavery and fucked up.

 

[Double Trouble]

This is an excellent move by the French. All other civilized countries should start doing this. If you don't agree with the fundamental principles of a country, don't freaking move there. The basic tenets of western countries (including France) include equality of the sexes. If you live somewhere else and don't want equality, then don't move there. If you do move there, you should be willing to embrace the local standards and not whine about it.

It's like the muslims that move to the Netherlands and then complain about the gay rights there. Guess what, that's how their society is -- don't like it, don't move there.

We have the same problem here in the US, but we don't have the balls to do anything about it. People from diverse backgrounds who want to come to this country and have respect for the basic freedoms and are willing to assimilate into the society are good for the country. Those that want to come who refuse to integrate are just bringing over a slice of whatever crappy country they came from. We don't need that.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Aimster
That's a barbaric version of Islam the Saudis practice.

9/11 Hijackers? They practiced the same belief system as the Saudis. Did Iraqis? NOPE. We invaded the wrong country

Taliban? Yes. They practice the same crap that the Saudis practice.

Women in Saudi Arabia cannot do anything. They are not allowed to drive.
They are not allowed outside without a male escort.
They walk around covering everything but their eyes because their backward twisted culture has women as slaves.

I have no problem with women in Islam who want to cover their head. Whatever. Covering everything but the eyes is slavery and fucked up.

You're telling her how she can and can't dress, how is that fundamentally different than what those men in Saudi Arabia are doing? It should be about choice as a principle, not the specific choice someone makes.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Double Trouble
This is an excellent move by the French. All other civilized countries should start doing this. If you don't agree with the fundamental principles of a country, don't freaking move there. The basic tenets of western countries (including France) include equality of the sexes. If you live somewhere else and don't want equality, then don't move there. If you do move there, you should be willing to embrace the local standards and not whine about it.

It's like the muslims that move to the Netherlands and then complain about the gay rights there. Guess what, that's how their society is -- don't like it, don't move there.

We have the same problem here in the US, but we don't have the balls to do anything about it. People from diverse backgrounds who want to come to this country and have respect for the basic freedoms and are willing to assimilate into the society are good for the country. Those that want to come who refuse to integrate are just bringing over a slice of whatever crappy country they came from. We don't need that.

Civilization means embracing more than one idea. Surely you don't think Americans all agree on every cultural rule, do you? The culture in some bible thumping small town in the south is dramatically different than the culture in San Francisco...so which should we force immigrants to comply with?

It really does strike me as funny that you people talk about civilization and demonize places like Saudi Arabia when you suppose EXACTLY the same kind of "one culture" bullshit that they do.

 

[Ballatician]

Please explain to me why France places similar restrictions on Yarmukle and Sikh turbans? Neither one is a symbol of oppression and is required by people of those faiths. It is not a controversial topic in either religion on whether it is required or not.

I think if she wants to wear a veil, so be it. While modesty is required in Islam, as far as I understand hijab is enough. However, it is an individuals choice and if people regard this as inequality of women, then denying them citizenship is not going to affect a change in culture. That can only happen through internal change among those people and cases like these are more likely to fuel resentment rather than change.

 

[magomago]

like i said before - HORRIBLE.

The veil is NOT representative of oppression. The veil is simply a VEIL. Nothing more, nothing less. If forced upon women, it can be seen as a symbol of opression. If allowed to be worn of their own free will, it becomes a symbol of femininity. To AUTOMATICALLY assume that the veil only stands for one thing is ridiculous.

I'm entirely opposed to this ruling. It violates her rights completely. What she chooses to wear should simply be her choice. There is nothing incompatible with "western values" about it, so as long as it is their choice to do so. Okay? This should be VERY straight forward. Let me quote a professor of religion who describes it very well :

http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/04/08/203604.php

There's a good deal of conflict, especially in France with the prohibitions against wearing the hijab (head covering or veil) and I did a story last year on Muslim teen girls who wear the hijab in public school - you point out that wearing it was once a status symbol - what is important for Westerners to understand about the role of women who voluntarily wear the head covering?

RA: "The veil is seen as a symbol of Islam but like all symbols, it's meaningless unless interpreted. The veil is as much a symbol of oppression of women as it is an expression of Muslim femininity. The strangeness of this is that if you go to a country where the veil is either mandatory or there is a lot of pressure to wear it, you'll find the vast majority of women are against it. But, if you go to a country like Turkey where the veil is outlawed in much of the public realm ? in the latest polls, 70 percent of the Muslim women want to remove that law.

I stress to people that the veil is a voluntary thing. That Muslim women should be allowed to choose for themselves whether to wear it. It's not up to me or any government to decide that. It's not any of my business.

aimster you are so full of shit right now that it is hilarious. PLENTY of women wear hijabs (in ALL their forms. I'll agree you will find something like a full body burqa to be isolated in more regions, but a veil covering the face isn't wildly out of there. I will agree that most women who do wear hijabs go with a basic hijab that simply covers only her hair and ears), and they live among PLENTY of other women who don't wear hijabs.

Banning women and preventing them from wearing a hijab is JUST AS BAD and forcing them to wear it.

 

[sunzt]

come on, even kkk members can be citizens with their pointy dunce hats and ghost costumes.

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

Originally posted by: Perknose
Good for France. I agree with the bolded below.
NYT sub link.

?It is not a religious insignia but the insignia of a totalitarian political project that promotes inequality between the sexes and is totally lacking in democracy,?

You know what's even more totalitarian and undemocratic? Banning someone from your country because of what they wear or what religion they practice.

 

[Double Trouble]

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer

Originally posted by: Perknose
Good for France. I agree with the bolded below.
NYT sub link.

?It is not a religious insignia but the insignia of a totalitarian political project that promotes inequality between the sexes and is totally lacking in democracy,?

You know what's even more totalitarian and undemocratic? Banning someone from your country because of what they wear or what religion they practice.

No. If their beliefs or culture are simply incompatible with the central tenets of a democratic society, and they are unwilling to change them to assimilate, then they should not be allowed in. Let them stay wherever they are.

 

[ScottyB]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Aimster
Muslims do not cover their faces..

only Saudis and their extremist sects that spread to parts of Afghanistan and Pakistan (AKA the Taliban) follow this B.S.

Ban it. It's pure crap

There's a mature attitude. "There's something I don't agree with, so we should ban it!" If how someone practices their religion harms you, then I agree it's worth making a law about it. But here in the Western world, people have (or should have) a right to practice however they wish as long as it doesn't interfere with the rights of anyone else. What's funny about this is that your narrow-minded attitude is more appropriate to a country like Saudi Arabia than France.

Correct. It is always best to embrace other cultures. It can only bring good. Who are we to say that religious practices should not be allowed? What's next, not allowing female circumcision? Western civilizations can learn from these wonderful practices.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: ScottyB

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Aimster
Muslims do not cover their faces..

only Saudis and their extremist sects that spread to parts of Afghanistan and Pakistan (AKA the Taliban) follow this B.S.

Ban it. It's pure crap

There's a mature attitude. "There's something I don't agree with, so we should ban it!" If how someone practices their religion harms you, then I agree it's worth making a law about it. But here in the Western world, people have (or should have) a right to practice however they wish as long as it doesn't interfere with the rights of anyone else. What's funny about this is that your narrow-minded attitude is more appropriate to a country like Saudi Arabia than France.

Correct. It is always best to embrace other cultures. It can only bring good. Who are we to say that religious practices should not be allowed? What's next, not allowing female circumcision? Western civilizations can learn from these wonderful practices.

Well it would certainly make your argument easier if that's what I said, but since it isn't, you might want to try a different approach. The reason you have to argue using the slippery slope fallacy is that your argument can't stand on its own merits. We're not talking about religious beliefs that include forcing a harmful, unwanted procedure on someone (which I believe would fall under the exception I talked about), we're talking about someone CHOOSING to dress a certain way because of her religious beliefs. Is this one of those days where we're having trouble distinguishing between the two?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Double Trouble

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer

Originally posted by: Perknose
Good for France. I agree with the bolded below.
NYT sub link.

?It is not a religious insignia but the insignia of a totalitarian political project that promotes inequality between the sexes and is totally lacking in democracy,?

You know what's even more totalitarian and undemocratic? Banning someone from your country because of what they wear or what religion they practice.

No. If their beliefs or culture are simply incompatible with the central tenets of a democratic society, and they are unwilling to change them to assimilate, then they should not be allowed in. Let them stay wherever they are.

That overly general definition would seem to exclude a lot of people already "assimilated" into western society. So far as I can tell, this woman is only "guilty" of choosing to dress herself a certain way, there are people in America (and France) who embrace far less democratic ideals, and worse, try to foist them on other people. If this woman were demanding a law saying ALL women in France should be forced to wear a veil, she still wouldn't be as anti-democratic as many of the people already living there (and here).