France refuses citizenship over Muslim woman's dress

You remember the French marriage that was annulled a couple of months ago because the bride had falsely told her Muslim husband that she was a virgin. In that case, the judge in effect adapted the law to Muslim values. Another case has just come to light in which the courts have done the opposite, ruling  against a Muslim woman because of her religious practises.

The Council of State, the highest legal body on civil law, denied citizenship to a  young Moroccan woman who wears a full veil on the grounds that her "radical" Islam is incompatible with French values.

Faiza M., who is married to a French national, arrived in France in 2000. She speaks good French and has three children born in France but she wears a black burqa, the full-length dress which also covers the face. She adopted it at the request of her husband, a member of the strict Salafist movement.

In 2005, a court refused her citizenship because she did not comply with obligation to integrate in French society. The Council of State rejected her appeal, making the refusal final. It was the first time that citizenship has been refused on such grounds. "She has adopted a radical practise of her religion, incompatible with essential values of the French community, particularly the principle of equality of the sexes," the Council said.

Listening to comment over the past 24 hours, it is clear that the decision enjoys public support. France is worried about Islamic practises that conflict with women's rights and the state takes seriously the doctrine of laicité, the religious neutrality or secularism that underpins the republic.  The ban on girls wearing Islamic head-cover in schools is part of that and it has strong public support.

Jack Lang, one of the dinosaur stars of the Socialist party, was on the radio this morning approving of the decision against Faiza M. "Wearing the burqa amounts to defiance of women's right to equality," he said. "Wearing this, she is little more than the slave of her husband."

But Lang admitted that there might be faulty logic in punishing Faiza M for excessive submission to her husband.  Danièle Lochak, a law professor, extended this thinking in le Monde, which broke the story of Faiza M. "If you follow that to its logical conclusion, it means that women whose partners beat them are also not worthy of being French," she said.

The ruling was delivered by Emmanuelle Prada-Bordenave, a government commissioner who specialises in the citizenship law. She wrote that Faiza M had presented herself for interviews "attired from head to toe in the clothing of women from the Arabian peninsula, with a veil covering her hair, forehead and chin and a piece of cloth over her face. Her eyes could only be seen through a small slit. She lives virtually as a recluse, disconnected from French society. She has no concept of laïcite nor the right to vote. She lives in total subservience to the men in her family."

France is stricter than other European states over requiring immigrants to integrate with national practises to qualify for citizenship, but other countries are catching up. Germany is about to join Britain in imposing a test of applicants' knowledge of national institutions and traditions. But there are no conditions anywhere else covering dress. 

Comments

[Antoine]

"But there are no conditions anywhere else covering dress. "

First, it is not a burqa. Don't trust the lame french journalists.

Second, the Concil of state don't even mention the dress or whatever she wears. Don't trust the lame french journalists.

Third , http://www.maitre-eolas.fr/2008/07/11/1030-faut-il-etre-francaise-pour-porter-la-burqa
Third,

[Mary Fernandez]

Good for France! And, for Jack Lang - usually, it is the left which goes out of its way to not offend anyone or make judgments about culture. The French should stand up for their values.

Britain is chin deep in multicultural relativism. The examples lately are too numerous to mention, but my favorite was a teacher named Aishah Azmi who was fired for refusing to remove her veil during lessons. She sued for discrimination and received compensation but didn't get her job back.

Hilariously, the BBC put a video of her, dressed head to toe in a black sheet, online, with the caption, "See Ms. Azmi's reaction". The comments section was flooded with the famous British sense of humour. :D

A woman in Florida, dressed exactly the same way, sued the State because she couldn't get her driver's license without removing her veil. Fortunately, she lost.

[Mary Fernandez]

A picture of Aishah Azmi:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6068408.stm

Guess her mood.

[dot king]

"She lives virtually as a recluse, disconnected from French society. She has no concept of laïcite nor the right to vote. She lives in total subservience to the men in her family."
(CB article)

I thought that anyone applying for French citizenship had to follow courses to learn the language, something of the customs and culture, the laws and fundamental principles of the country, before being approved as "fit to be French".
How did this young woman get to the point of "admise / recallée" without any of this getting through?

Has she applied directly and been refused? Will she now be required to follow some kind of "formation"? Is this a definitive decision? Will she now be expelled from the country after a certain length of "séjour"? And what of her children? There is more than the question of a burka here.

France often discovers examples of modern slavery of young women often "working" for diplomatic families, just as in other countries, is horrified, feels there is a moral duty to "save" them. There have been cases where "saving" has been through conferring of French citizenship.

Here is a fine opportunity to "educate" the whole family into what living in a modern, lay, society / country means. To have them respect the law.
Once again, through the way this case is presented, it is the victim herself who is going to be (further) punished.

BTW I know quite a few European, non-Muslim women who live as "slaves" to their family, wives who would never think of going anywhere without their husband, or at least asking his permission, who speak little or no French. They don't wear the burka of course, so no-one ever questions it.
Most of them wouldn't have much in the way of notion of France as a lay country either.

[Pondlife]

It is not the case that France "just" bans the veil in schools, but insists in no show of religion at all. No Jewish headwear, no Catholic crosses visible.

As we were advised when our British children enrolled at local school here in France, "we rejoice in their being British here, but that will be left as baggage at the classroom door..."

That is as it should be I believe.

[That's the theory of course, but the law was introduced to get rid of Muslim head cover in schools. The rest was not posing a problem. CB]

[dot king]

ANTOINE: I'd written my post before anything appeared on this thread, I see that the article you link to answers my questions concerning the woman's explulsion and the status of her children.
Thank you.
The cartoon at the end of the article is excellent!

[christopher muir]

The burqua traps a woman in an ambulatory prison. It's awful to see these female figures in head-to-toe dark robes on a sweltering day in the Middle East. One always hears the somewhat tiresome argument that any westerner in Saudi Arabia can't stroll around in shorts because it's offensive to the locals. So, visitors politely adjust to custom. My observations tell me that wearing the burqua in Paris or Sydney increases prejudices in these edgy times. The problems are only going to grow worse unless the narrow-minded husbands can be brought into line. I doubt if they will ever surrender power over the submissive wife (wives, in some illegal instances).

[Albert Judd]

Hooray! One small step for civilization. One ....

All the lady has to do is look vaguely civilized. If she can't even do that for an hour or two....

The Queen of England and the female Prime Minister of Great Britain covered up for Saudi Arabia, Ms Faiza M. could show France the equivalent courtesy.

BTW. Tabooed female headgear is not per se Moslem, as anyone educated by Christian nuns can attest.

It does show allegiance to premodern Middle Eastern society of a type now almost exclusively Moslem. The anti-Christian and anti-Jewish pogroms sporadically carried on from the Seventh to the Twenty-First Centuries have seen to that.

The mullahs have been remarkably successful in preventing the emergence of the Moslem world from the barbarism they brought to the Middle East in the Seventh Century.

The premodern era was generally more unpleasant than modern European civilization. That is why Moslems want to come here. In Europe, we can do without regression into barbarism, thank you.

For historical and philosophical reasons, most French have a better grasp of the distinction between civilization and barbarism than do most British, who have been hopelessly confused by a generation 'educated' in moral equivalence sociology.

[Sensi]

Like previously mentioned the Burqa wasn't the cause mentioned for the refusal to give her the french nationality, it was all the rest. The french so-called "journalists" have done their usual sloppy work, putting the Burqa in their headlines to be sure to completely deceive their readers.

[Dominique]

Dot K,

"Will she now be required to follow some kind of "formation"?

--> No one is forced to become french. So she'll never be "required".

"Is this a definitive decision?"
--> up to her

" Will she now be expelled from the country after a certain length of "séjour"? "
--> Why should she? Naturalisation and family grouping are different things.

"And what of her children?"
--> Yes? what about them? what is your problem? They are french. So?

The main issue here is the very contradiction with Sarko's campaign : he claimed that all woman who were victims of integrism "deserved to be french". Well, isn't that in contradiction? I suppose he was thinking of those who were willing to emancipate.

More seriously, being french is not mandatory for living in France, for having welfare, for raising french children, for eating, working, paying taxes etc... Some even say that being french shouldn't be a requisite for voting. some even say that the less french there are in France, the better (yes it does exist).

The issue is always the same : Is the french identity based on race, religion, skin color, native culture, or....values? The law says it is based on values. History shows it is also based on common will. In the case it is based on values, what are these values? Then, we are back on the same old "Liberté, égalité, fraternité" thing.

The law allows the republic to refuse access to french citizenship to anyone that «répandre des thèses extrémistes manifestant un rejet des valeurs essentielles de la société française»."

in english : "anyone who spreads extremists theories showing a rejection of essentials values of the french society".

I feel like the burka or what ever the name is, is clearly spreading extremist religious values that go against essential values of the french society. In this case, the republic does show it's endless honorable fight against mad religious dogmas, for good!

This does probably mean that all little hysterical french teenagers willing to shock the average french person will be now wearing a burqa. But isn't that the adult's duty to say no to immature teenagers?

It is true that the french society is less tolerant than others to sectarian religious practices. For good! J'assume!

Same regarding Jehova's witnesses who are clearly out of laws with their dangerous medical theories.

[Sensi]

Council of State report: http://www.liberation.fr/actualite/societe/_files/file_338543_150254.pdf

Nowhere the Burqa is mentioned but Liberation continue to deceive their readers all this while posting the report proving they are misleading. What a pathetic joke.

[Dominique]

[That's the theory of course, but the law was introduced to get rid of Muslim head cover in schools. The rest was not posing a problem. CB]

Well, dear Charles, not quite true! This was a "back to normal" law to what was before Lionel Jospin took over as a education minister. In 1989, while all religious signs were forbidden since 1905, he did accept muslim headscarfs at school and created a precedent. Then, all other religions started of course to react.

When my mother was a child (in the 30's....), no single religious sign was accepted. Not even a small cross. At that time, there were only catholic and jewish signs. So, please note that other religious signs did also create problems before.

Actually, they always created problems because "creating problems" is the very purpose of religious signs. This is what they are meant to.

[Dominique]

Ah ça ira ça ira ça ira.......

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6e/Commune_de_Paris.jpg

[dot king]

DOMINIQUE - I hadn't seen Antoine's link when I first posted - it answered all my questions.

I know no-one's forced to be French, but this young woman had applied for French nationality, so I asked how she had got to the level of refusal in such ignorance, as I thought everyone who applied had to reach a certain level of linguistic competence and knowledge of France and its way of life.

My "problem" with the children was wondering whether there was a possibility of deportation of their mother if ever her permis de séjour were revoked or its renewal refused. They are French and she isn't, has been refused French nationality.
Suppose one day she's widowed? Or repudiated? She lives as a "slave" in France and then is unprotected when possible loss of her children becomes an issue?

I don't think the wearing of a burka is "spreading" a religious doctrine, just a continuation of a religious tradition on new territories - ie outside of Muslim countries, or countries where Islam is a majority religion.

You mention "sectarian religious practices" but Muslims aren't a sect. Islam is one of the three main monotheist religions of the world along with Judaism and Christianity.
Each one has its differences in its practices, and its extremist contingents, to keep things a little in perspective.
Sects are Scientologists, Jehova's Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, Mormons, Snake Handlers, Divine Light followers, et al.

We don't disagree on this Dominique, at least I don't think so - this is clearing up a couple of minor points of misunderstanding.

[Dominique]

Dot K,

"I don't think the wearing of a burka is "spreading" a religious doctrine, just a continuation of a religious tradition on new territories"

--> Well, the Burqa is not worn in Marroco. She did not dress that way in Marocco, she started in France. So, this is the very opposite of what you described: wearing the burqa is clearly a "spreading" of a religious doctrine that does not come from Marroco.

"You mention "sectarian religious practices" but Muslims aren't a sect"

--> of course Islam is not. But Salafism is. She was not a salafist in Marroco, and became one once married to one. Tipical ways for sects to hire new "souls".

[Mike FW]

it strikes me she should have a case under article 6 of the European Declaration of
Human Rights.

[marc millier]

Voltaire, réveille-toi, ils sont devenus fous!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Daniel Strohl]

"Jack Lang, one of the dinosaur stars of the Socialist party" (Charles)

LOL !

ANTOINE,

Thanks for your excellent link. The legal explanations are very clear, i.e. understandable by everybody. However, I noticed 2 or 3 fautes de grammaire ou d'inattention - péché véniel!

[Sensi]

@ DOT KING

Salafism is a "sectarian religious practice" of Islam.

[razatork]

I think it's the first time i agree with dominique. I'm shocked.

I think there is a large consensus in france to reject religious extremisms, all of them indeed but islamist ones especially. They are completely at odds with the values of the republic concerning just about every subject and they're the most politicised and the most active too.
And don't get me started about their fifth-columnism.

Glad to see the state isn't capitulating like in great britain.

"I am razatork and i approve this message."

[Robert Marchenoir]

"But Lang admitted that there might be faulty logic in punishing Faiza M for excessive submission to her husband." (CB)

1. She was not punished. Acquiring French nationality, for a foreign national, is not a right; it's a privilege. Therefore, if it's denied, it's not a punishment.

2. Whatever the official motives, she was not denied citizenship for submitting to her husband. She was denied citizenship because she is a traitor to her host country.

She publicly wears a piece of garb which is the flag of a heinous, violent and totalitarian cult. This cult has openly vowed to conquer and enslave France (among others), while killing and maiming its citizens -- and has already begun to honour its promises. It is supported financially, politically and militarily by a vast alliance of foreign powers.

Denying her citizenship was the very least that could be done. Actually, her husband should have been stripped of his own, and both of them should had been sent packing to Morocco, where they would have found, no doubt, the islamic paradise they are so much longing for.

The press reports I've read say her husband is "French", but I haven't seen mention of his ancestry anywhere.

I'll bet a crate of château-petrus against a second-hand piece of chewing-gum that this gentleman is actually of Moroccan descent, and is only French because of our very liberal laws granting citizenship to anyone born in France (we'd be well advised to change these laws pronto, if we don't want to wake up in the French Islamic Republic a few years from now).

It's very likely that this man, whose allegiance to France is obviously as paper-thin as his passport and his Social Security card, is one of the many domestic Muslims who import a wife from their former country, the better to force them into Islamic submission (while occasionnally philandering with French "sluts" -- Muslims' usual words, not mine).

Contrary to what woolly French liberals think, this woman's veil is not only, coming from her husband, an infrigement of her rights. It's also a way to make a public statement of belligerence against his own country, and an attempt to rally, around the flag of his veiled wife's figure, similarly defiant and agressive Muslims. It's a declaration of war.

This man is, very probably, the embodiement of this deceitful statistic according to which mixed marriages represent a significant portion of the total.

This statistic is liberally used by leftists and the government in order to "prove" that integration is working. Actually, it proves quite the contrary. It is disintegration which is occuring, since a large part of these pseudo-mixed marriages are occuring between a Muslim immigrant with French nationality and a bride picked up abroad.

Actually, the proportion of this type of marriage among all marriages occuring in France is staggering (it may be as high as a third -- but you'd really have to check; I'm quoting this from memory). It's also one of the best-kept secrets of the French Ministry of Truth, for the Prevention of Vice and for the Promotion of Virtue.

It would be very helpful if The Times took up this lead and investigated this trend of foreign marriages. With a little luck, its report could then be picked up by the French media.

It recently took a Washington Post reporter to investigate in France and come back with this headline: "60 to 70% of French inmates are Muslims".

Only then did Le Monde dare publish this shocking piece of news straight from its home turf -- only quoting the Washington Post, of course. The media and politicians go a long way to hide this fact from the public, although it's impossible for any lawyer, judge or policeman to ignore it.

I, myself, recoiled in horror when I read that headline on Le Monde.fr. Such is the ideological pressure. You are definitely not supposed to write that. It's raaacist. It's haram.

[Daisy]

Hmmm, so she wears the burqa to please her husband so she is submitting to his views. It's not okay for her to be French but it's okay for him (who holds these views) to be French. So they're not punishing the views, they're punishing the submission.

In that case, what about all of those "femme de" types. You know them, they're the ones in the front rows of fashion shows and at charity balls... those pointless geishas who marry rich/powerful men (think ministers wives) whose subsequent lives and identities are subsumed by their husbands lives, identities and careers? They've submitted to their husbands. Should they still be French? Or is it the burqa? Maybe if it was Chanel...this is a slippery slope.

[Nick]

I live in a suburb that abuts the peripherique and here there is a strong Muslim community. I don’t know the figures but it wouldn’t surprise me if almost 50% of the people here were Muslims. Obviously therefore I am very accustomed, and have no problem, living cheek by jowel as it were, with people of that faith. Here most are, or their parents and grandparents were, from the old French colonies in North Africa.

But earlier this year I passed, in the new business quarter, a young Muslim lady completely covered in black robes except for a slit over her eyes. Not a burqa exactly, I don’t know what it’s called, but anyway totally hiding her identity.

What really surprised me was my own reaction. I consider myself liberal, in the English sense of the word, and though not religious myself I believe in the right of others to practice theirs. And yet ... And yet I felt somehow offended, affronted, almost insulted by this mysterious woman clothed as Emmanuelle Prada-Bordenave said, “in the clothing of women from the Arabian peninsula”.

Whether or not it is right not to grant French citizenship to Faiza M I cannot say, but I have a strong sense of unease when immigrants claim the right to live and behave in their adopted home as they did in their country of origin. I apply this to myself and other English people who have decided to settle here.

I don’t want to dramatise things, I’m not one to worry about hidden bombs etc. and I have no problems with headscarves to indicate a woman’s faith, but the manner in which Faiza M, and my mysterious lady choose to dress may be compatible with standards in Morocco or Saudi Arabia but France is neither of those countries.

Residence here of course, but being given French nationality? I think the court made the right decision.

[NotAgainand Again&Again]

Muslims seem to be easy pickings!!!!

Its high time we introduced some solidarity within ourselves and show how as muslim states, we can also do the same to the west!

Unless we unite, we will continue to be easy targets....

[Tony Rasmus]

We should treat the muslims in our countries the same way they treat christians in their countries. No more, No less. If and when they ever change their absurd views and return to the true teaching of tolerance and respect for others that they had 1000 years ago then we should again accept them into the human race as equal. Until then the mullahs and their bigoted views and customs should not be tolerated.

[Lex Stevens]

To take a couple of points --slightly out of context -- from Article 6 of the European Declaration of Human Rights, I think that this is an issue of morals and of public order. In modern, western democracies it is generally considered immoral to oppress women and children, as well as to submit anyone to involuntary servitude. In some communities, having a large and growing population of people who have no interest in integrating into the larger society is becoming a threat to the public order.

I am happy that the French have taken this decision. This is an issue that we in the west must discuss, and given France's history of and adherence to laicité, it is the natural place for this discussion to begin in earnest.

I think that it is important for Muslims -- or more appropriately, Islamicists -- to understand that in Europe and the Americas, the role of the church and religion in government and civil society has been a point of contention for several centuries. By and large, we have chosen to relegate the role of the church and religion to the area of private life. This is a key element in the foundation on which we have built our modern nations. If they choose to live among us, then they must accept these tenants of our societies and our laws, just as they often expect us to do when we are in their countries.

I look forward to this discussion. It is something that I have not fully thought through, and I think that it is one of the more important issues of our time.

[Romain]

Matters of nationality are normally handled by the tribunal d'instance.
If this case was brought to the conseil d'état it is for political reasons, and I find it shocking that the state should intervene in such private matters. Nothing dramatic though, the lady will get her permis de séjour renewed for ever. For those who read French, maître Eolas blog is the reference for legal questions.

[Francois D]

Thanks to Dominique, Lex Stevens and others for your arguments.
I am not a fanatic of "laicité" but I think that this concept has became useful in this kind of situation. The way by wich some islamists women are dressed is seen as a provocation. Legislation forbidding ostentatious religious signs is a good thing.
That also liberate girls from macho family grip.
This woman, and especially her husband,have been warned, by social workers, about risks they ran for nationality's obtention.
This is an excellent new that the State Council (Conseil d'Etat) has not challenged the judgement. And this is now a "jurisprudence" (equivalent to the law for others judgements about same topic).

It is possible they now try to seek to break this decision near the european court. I hope that this will not jeopardise the French jurisprudence. That will cost them time and money (for this last no problem, I think).

It should be noted that ban on religious symbols is valid for all religions and not just the Muslim Thus, a Roman Catholic nun is no longer allowed to teach in a school (enter in an University, deliver cares in a public hospital) with a veil or even wear a cross around his neck during a public education.
Dura lex sed lex.

[dot king]

Without French nationality, is this young woman any less a "slave" or any less a Salafist? Would she be any less either with a different dress code?
Stripped of her habit, a nun is still a nun, the religious conviction and practice don't go away just because you ban, hide - or ignore the uniform.

[Robert Marchenoir]

"If this case was brought to the conseil d'état it is for political reasons, and I find it shocking that the state should intervene in such private matters." (Romain)

Utter nonsense on both counts.

The Conseil d'Etat is the ultimate appeals court in matters where an individual has a dispute with the state. No politics there. Just the law.

And, of course, the decision to grant French citizenship to a foreign national is not a "private matter". It is one of the public decisions by the nation which carries the most weight towards the future. That, and going to war.

I know that the Left, the dozens of publicly subsidized associations who are lobbying for unhindered immigration, and a significant part of the immigrants (not all of them), would have us believe that acquiring French citizenship should be a mere administrative formality, akin to registering one's car; and that every Dick and Harry (that would rather be Mohammed and Boubacar, nowadays) should have the human right to become French, whereas France should only have the right to stamp some official papers and just shut up.

These people, technically, are traitors.

[colin grayson]

well robert , I am sure that the washington post could have said that 60-70 of american inmates are black [ probably more ] or 60-70% of inmates in first world countries are poor , the last probably being the number one factor

I personally attended a 'religious'school ..and would ban them ; not because of the sexual abuse [ which there was ] ...probably happens everywhere , but because it was so divisive ; I am all for the french idea of laicite ..I think anyone who followed the saga in n.ireland would be aware of the horrors of even sects within the same religion ; looks like sunni's and shia's are as bad

but in the same way as it is not permitted for me to walk naked in the street , it should not be permitted for anyone to be in public with their face covered and be unidentifiable ; I refer not only for religous reasons , but 'hoodies ' , motorcyclists with full faced helmets when not riding their machine etc

but for people who don't like this , they should have the inalienable right not to come here

[christopher muir]

I digress. One of the great things about Charles' blogs is that they set you off on your own internet research after reading them. For instance, today I discovered that Daily Motion provide a large part of Pontecorvo's brilliant "Battle Of Algiers"; truly worth digesting while recognising many parallels with today's conflicts. (Often viewed at the Pentagon, it's said.)

[Cobin Rain]

Simple Question: does a country have the right to say who it gives citizenship to? And can it deny citizenship on the grounds that someone is unlikely to integrate? If you answered yes to both, be sure to tell your elected officials; if you said "no" you are a fool

[Mark]

GOOD! Britain needs to learn from France and STOP COWERING ....

[dot king]

"does a country have the right to say who it gives citizenship to? And can it deny citizenship on the grounds that someone is unlikely to integrate?"
Cobin Rain
Agree with all the logic of your question, but in this case the rest of the woman's family is French, and if the woman is obliged to follow "house rules " (ie the family / religious rules) whether a citizen or not, she will not (probably never) integrate, as seemingly, her French family hasn't, according at least to the principles we are led to believe deny her naturalisation.
The focus is on her - a alien so to speak, but clearly the dangers that some bloggers point out, if they truly exist, come from "within" - again so to speak.

[Lex Stevens]

"Without French nationality, is this young woman any less a "slave" or any less a Salafist?" --Dot King

I think that there is a difference between the state allowing personal religious freedom and condoning hijab.

At least the state has made clear that it will not be so easy for men to go outside France to get wives who will be more subservient than the Muslim women who have been raised in France.

Hopefully Muslim women who live in France will realize that they have a choice if they chose to leave oppressive marriages.

[azloon]

[but in the same way as it is not permitted for me to walk naked in the street , it should not be permitted for anyone to be in public with their face covered and be unidentifiable] Colin Grayson

we have our own problems with this in the u.s.

on halloween, customers in costumes are asked to remove masks before entering banks, since a number of notorious bank robberies have been perpetrated by costumed bandits.

who knows what this woman pictured above is 'up to?'

does she have an oozi under that garmet?

is she even a 'she?'

is she smirking at us? (that really would be annoying)

i say make her/him take off her halloween costume.

in the privacy of her own home, of course. with her husband supervising.

[Romain]

Robert Marchenoir

Vous êtes un grand malade et vous devriez consulter. Ce serait gentil de vôtre part de ne pas engager de dialogue avec moi. N'oubliez pas de consulter, néanmoins.

"This does probably mean that all little hysterical french teenagers willing to shock the average french person will be now wearing a burqa." -- DOMINIQUE

Were that to happen in the States, at least we wouldn't have to see their facial piercings, distended ears and ghastly hair.

On a more serious note, during the only large demonstration against the US invasion of Iraq in Boston (widely considered to be a bastion of rampant left-liberalism in the US) there were American women wearing various forms of hijab and carrying signs in support of women in Iraq. I found it slightly disturbing at the time, and I have never been able to fathom their logic.

Of course, in the late eighties and early nineties in the States, it was fashionable to wear khaffiyas as winter scarves to show one's support of the Palestinians. Alas, now Arafat has joined my rogues gallery, along with the likes of Sartre and de Beauvoir. Ahh...the illusions of youth.

[Mary Fernandez]

AZLOON -

Rob a bank? Never!! She's off to go buy Carla's new album.

[Robert Marchenoir]

"Robert Marchenoir: vous êtes un grand malade et vous devriez consulter. Ce serait gentil de votre part de ne pas engager de dialogue avec moi. N'oubliez pas de consulter, néanmoins." (Romain)

Let me translate this gem. Our leftist, immigrationist, Islamophile friend seems to forget that quite a number of Times readers worldwide do not speak French.

It would be a pity if they were unable to fathom the depths of his wisdom, the extent of his dedication to democracy, the vibrancy of his love of freedom, and generally his passion for rational debate unfettered by name-calling and character assassination. Not to mention his understanding of what blogging is about.

"Robert Marchenoir: you are thoroughly deranged and you should seek professional help. Please be so kind as not to discuss with me. Do not forget to see a doctor, though."

Some people seem to regret the good old days when the Soviets used to lock up political opponents in mental institutions. It's funny how quickly the "deranged" line comes up when leftists run out of rational arguments -- which is quite often. Although, in the present case, we are still waiting for the first attempt at a rational counter-argument from Romain on the subject of Islam.

This gives you a good idea of the general political climate that would prevail if Leftists and Islamists had their way.

Also, if you do not want dissenting people to discuss with you, may I suggest that you quit blogging.

[Jeanne]

A male friend who is Iranian thinks this decision was terrible--he doesn't accept the existence of a malicious intent behind the dress. I agree with the decision of the French immigration authorities. The government needs to attack this cruel, suppressive, Medieval nonsense in the most stringent manner. I do not think it follows logically that women who are beaten by their husbands aren't French. There is no connection. This is a different problem.

[Léopold Schonbach]

To Robert Marchenoir:

"this gentleman ... is only French because of our very liberal laws granting citizenship to anyone born in France (we'd be well advised to change these laws pronto, if we don't want to wake up in the French Islamic Republic a few years from now)"

But, Monsieur Marchenoir, someone granted your wish once. He was called Philippe Pétain. I know, I was born in France to foreign parents in 1943 and had to be naturalized in 1946. Pétain changed the law from "droit du sol" to droit du sang. I guess a few honest citizens like you had pleaded that they did not want to wake up in a "République enjuivée".

I am not sure of what to think of the Conseil d'Etat ruling. One part of me rebels against its illiberal slant, and the other part approves the rejection of an anti-liberal religious behaviour. However I am sure that your arguments stink.

[Ceci]

I have a question. What if someone is French born or already a French citizen and chooses to wear the full body cover? How can a French citizen walk around fully covered while another is denied citizenship when dressing in the exact same manner?

[Rick]

The right of abode within a country assumes a minimal participation in the national life. Concealing one's features above the 90% surface area point is incompatible with such a notion of participation. QED

Besides, I'm sure that some people find ladies in the 'altogether', i.e. 90%+ covered a bit of a 'turn on': the overheated male and lustful imagination is given free range by such excessive precaution.

Mr Marchenoir sounds awfully intemperate, BTW.

[John Gregory Flinn]

Only in Europe can the burqa (or whatever muslims want to call it) arose such passions! But that is'nt the point.

Any one who has lived and worked in an arab country knows that women are not slaves of their men-folk. They have a different perspective on their role, behaviour, and responsibility within the culture - most of which is determined by Islam.
Wearing the veil varies widely.
In Sudan it is uncommon - maybe on Fridays. In Egypt the Copts do not wear it at all, and the muslims may do so. In Saudia Arabia they may do in public. In Pakistan it's similar to Egypt. And so on....

However in the West those dimwit-liberals may see the veil as the incarnate epitome of female oppression, radical Islam, anti-semitism etc., etc.
But fall over themselves to allow it's proliferation in the name of 'tolerance'!
Meanwhile, muslims in the West (as well as in France) are busy doing exactly what ROBERT MARCHENOIR says and for the reasons he quotes.
Because they can.

Alan Greenspan notes in his book 'The Age of Turbulence' how mass migration of workers from the 2nd and 3rd worlds to the west's workshops, hospitals and retirement homes etc., has kept down wages and inflation hitherto.
Granting these immigrants nationality, passports and rights about their dependants without common assent is the problem.

It's a variant of that old saw about capitalism selling the rope that hangs itself. That is, 'western liberal values' sets the scene for its own demise!
And muslim scholars predict that 'Rome' will fall to Islam next/soon!
Except perhaps France, which perhaps from its colonial experience knows a little more that most.

PS; CB's quotation "The rest was not posing a problem" may not be correct. Sikhs pedalled their need to wear the turban (and, at times, a ceremonial dagger) well before the muslim veil.

[Romain]

My point was the lady was fulfilling the objective conditions to be granted the French nationality. The political power decided otherwise on subjective grounds. The tribunal d'instance was overruled by a governmental decree, by all means political, and somewhat scarry to me with regards to individual freedom. I know that it would'nt be a very popular stand point, but I don't think this would happen in the US, because of its constitution fiercely protecting freedom of belief. At the end of the day, nothing prevents that lady from walking around dressed as a scarecrow, nor her French co-believers.

[John Gregory Flinn]

I'm not sure I understand LEOPOLD SCHONBACH's post. Did the changes he quotes adversely affect his naturalization?

Some christian citizens of Serbia have woken up to find themselves in a different country run by Albanian gangs who are Muslims.
Then again, nearer to home, the Dutch-speaking Flemish citizens of Belgium have great difficulty waking up and living in the same country as the French-speaking Walloons.
But perhaps its the idea of an Islamic Republic in France that causes those liberal-leftists and 'quiet-lifers' to dismiss such warnings as ridiculous.
How about a home-grown Lebanese-style of urban conflict then?
Such a situation exists in cities of northern Ireland - yes, even today. And is developing well in English towns and cities due to muslim 'issues'.
Or have'nt these been noticed.....?

[Monika]

I must agree that the strict laicité in France has its advantages in this kind of situation as was stated by a commentator before.

Although I generally are in favour of everybody exercising his/her belief freely I came, over the last years, to the conclusion that there are limits to this.

It is imho unconceivable that a religeous rite that is in clear contradiction to the common values of a society may be accepted.

It may be acceptable that a Muslim family sacrifices a lamb but it is inacceptable in the society of ours that a member of a bizarr religeous sect sacrifices another human being even if his religeous laws command it.

The burqa is imho in the same register since in our society women's rights are fundamental.

I, though, have to agree that there are other women whose rights are stamped on without them wearing a burqa or even being muslim.

But I agree: they should have punished the husband instead.

[Valentin]

I agree with JG Flinn's post, and I'd say the problem is not so much veil or not veil, but the fact that the woman was absolutely not integrated in the French society, had very little in common with France, and virtually continued to live in her country of origin.

To quote the ruling:

"She lives virtually as a recluse, disconnected from French society. She has no concept of laïcite nor the right to vote. She lives in total subservience to the men in her family."

I should also add there was little political interference: the decision was made by a Court of law and confirmed by the Council of State. Applying the rules (and enforcing them) may bother the left wing diehards, but is still the concept at the very foundation of our democratic societies.

(btw off the top of my head, I can't see why having children in a foreign country should entitle any one to citizenship, in spite of obvious rejection of that country's values)