European Tribune - Community, Politics & Progress.

Is this real?

by Colman
Sat Jul 12th, 2008 at 12:24:14 PM EST

A story from the Guardian explains that a Moroccan woman has been denied French citizenship on the basis of her religious/cultural practices:

The woman, known as Faiza M, is 32, married to a French national and lives east of Paris. She has lived in France since 2000, speaks good French and has three children born in France. Social services reports said she lived in "total submission" to her husband. Her application for French nationality was rejected in 2005 on the grounds of "insufficient assimilation" into France. She appealed, invoking the French constitutional right to religious freedom and saying that she had never sought to challenge the fundamental values of France. But last month the Council of State, France's highest administrative body, upheld the ruling.
"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," it said.

I'm actually interested to see the knots that our French friends will tie themselves into explaining how this is actually a blow for Liberté, égalité et fraternité.

Or maybe it's just bizarrely false reporting from the Guardian.

. Home
. About
. Contact
. New User Guide
. FAQ
. Search
. Search (Google)
. Archives (Wiki)
Art, Economics, Energy, Environment, EU Politics, Mech & Tech, By Country

Username:
Password:

. Make a new account
. Reset password

Is this real? | 44 comments (44 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Re: Is this real? (4.00 / 4)

If we're going for freedom from religion rather than freedom of religion, can we go after the bloody Christians first please? Thanks.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Sat Jul 12th, 2008 at 12:25:10 PM EST

Re: Is this real? (4.00 / 2)

Somewhere Mitt Romney's head is exploding.

Where's your motherf*%&ing flag pin?

by Drew J Jones (blahblahblah@blahblahblah.com) on Sat Jul 12th, 2008 at 12:27:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is this real? (4.00 / 4)

Well, in France we went after the Catholics 103 years ago.

Citing the popular lawyer's blog Maitre Eolas :

Journal d'un avocat		A Lawyer's diary
Elle pose la question des limites que les valeurs de la République pose aux pratiques religieuses, et apporte la même réponse depuis 103 ans : les premières l'emportent toujours.		It asks the question of the limits the Republic's values imposes to religious practices, and makes the same answer it has given for 103 years : the first always prevail.

Auferre, trucidare, rapere, falsis nominibus imperium; atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.

by linca (antonin POINT lucas AROBASE gmail.com) on Sat Jul 12th, 2008 at 01:32:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Bah (none / 1)

We did. A long time ago. Nothing new here.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (jeromeguillet@yahoo.fr) on Sat Jul 12th, 2008 at 02:59:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is this real? (none / 1)

Somehow the link to the story doesn't work for me...

The summary is so bizarre as to be just unbelievable. You got this from the Onion, right?

by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Sat Jul 12th, 2008 at 12:37:40 PM EST

Re: Is this real? (none / 1)

Yes, it just links back to the your diary, Colman.

Where's your motherf*%&ing flag pin?

by Drew J Jones (blahblahblah@blahblahblah.com) on Sat Jul 12th, 2008 at 12:40:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is this real? (none / 1)

Fixed now.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Sat Jul 12th, 2008 at 12:40:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is this real? (none / 1)

Link.

Where's your motherf*%&ing flag pin?

by Drew J Jones (blahblahblah@blahblahblah.com) on Sat Jul 12th, 2008 at 12:40:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is this real? (4.00 / 2)

Not from the Onion, and (though controversial in France), not necessarily a head-exploder here.

Anyway, to satisfy Colman's wish to see some noeuds, here's a Le Monde editorial:

La Burqa, symbole - Le Monde.fr		The Burqa, a symbol - Le Monde.fr
L'affaire sur laquelle la haute juridiction a tranché tient en quelques mots : une Marocaine mariée à un Français et mère de trois enfants nés en France s'est vu refuser, en 2005, la nationalité française, au motif qu'elle porte la burqa et que cela constituerait un "défaut d'assimilation". Saisi en appel, le jugement du Conseil d'Etat tient, également, en quelques mots, manifestement pesés au trébuchet : cette femme "a adopté, au nom d'une pratique radicale de sa religion, un comportement en société incompatible avec les valeurs essentielles de la communauté française et notamment le principe d'égalité des sexes".		The case on which the high court ruled takes few words to relate: a Moroccan woman married to a Frenchman, mother of three children born in France, was refused French nationality in 2005, on the grounds that she wears the burqa and this could be considered a "lack of assimilation" . There are also few words, obviously carefully weighed, in the appeal judgement of the Council of State: this woman "has adopted, in the name of a radical practice of her religion, behaviour in society that is incompatible with the essential values of the French community and in particular the principle of gender equality ".
Nul doute qu'il va se voir reprocher, à nouveau, de stigmatiser une religion, l'islam. Et de ne pas mesurer le fossé qui le sépare de la réalité complexe de la société française. Le Conseil, il est vrai, s'en tient à une appréciation de principe : à ses yeux, la burqa est tout sauf un signe religieux banal, qui relèverait d'un simple choix privé ou de la liberté de conscience ; à ses yeux, c'est au contraire un symbole majeur pour les musulmans les plus militants et minoritaires, qui revendiquent une pratique extrême de leur religion. Un symbole de ségrégation entre les hommes et les femmes. Un symbole inacceptable du statut d'infériorité de la femme dans cette conception de l'islam. Comment lui donner tort ?		No doubt [the Council of State] will be reproached, again, with stigmatizing a particular religion, Islam. And with not seeing the gap that separates it from the complex reality of French society. The Council, it's true, does not go beyond a judgement based on principle: in its view, the burqa is anything but a trivial religious sign, that would belong to the domain of simple private choice or of freedom of conscience; in its view, it is to the contrary, a major symbol for the minority of most militant Muslims, who claim the right to an extreme practice of their religion. A symbol of segregation between men and women. An unacceptable symbol of the inferior status of women in this conception of Islam. How to disagree?

Well, I don't disagree on the symbolic value; however, I do think it's a matter of private choice. And, given that the woman's husband is French and she has three children born here, the rejection of her naturalisation request is right out of line imo.

As Colman says, they might go after the Christians. Have these dopes never seen a nun?

PS I find extremely strange that the Council of State uses "community" language in speaking of "the French community". That would seem to admit other communities living alongside? Also known as "multiculturalism"?

When locusts move on, they leave nothing behind

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Sat Jul 12th, 2008 at 01:24:05 PM EST

Re: Is this real? (4.00 / 4)

Let's note that the emphasis on the burqa is not present in the Council of State's ruling, but in the journalist reading of the situation. The ruling speaks of behaviour regarding sex equality. We don't know how it arrived at that conclusion.

Auferre, trucidare, rapere, falsis nominibus imperium; atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.

by linca (antonin POINT lucas AROBASE gmail.com) on Sat Jul 12th, 2008 at 01:43:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is this real? (4.00 / 3)

As for the French community, it is made up of the people of French nationality, and de jure it is very clear foreign nationals living in France aren't part of it : they can't vote...

Auferre, trucidare, rapere, falsis nominibus imperium; atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.

by linca (antonin POINT lucas AROBASE gmail.com) on Sat Jul 12th, 2008 at 01:45:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is this real? (none / 1)

This is a new doctrine. The Republic one and indivisible isn't made up of voters alone, as far as I know. And you know the word "community" is loaded, as an expression that belongs rather with a multiculturalist viewpoint.

When locusts move on, they leave nothing behind

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Sat Jul 12th, 2008 at 03:20:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is this real? (none / 1)

Well, according to the wikipedia disambiguation page, the words "communauté française" have an even worse history, beyond its association with Belgium.

However, the "Republic one and indivisible" share a paragraph with "the equality of all citizens", which don't exactly include foreign nationals...

Auferre, trucidare, rapere, falsis nominibus imperium; atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.

by linca (antonin POINT lucas AROBASE gmail.com) on Sat Jul 12th, 2008 at 03:33:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is this real? (none / 1)

EU citizens are certainly supposed to be included since they're to be treated on an equal footing with citizens of any member state, according to Maastricht and following treaties.

But I really am surprised by this use of "community" in a ruling from such a high instance. And, as you point out, the term "communauté française" (re France), has an inglorious past, especially

Communauté française - Wikipédia

Sous le régime de Vichy, l'expression communauté française servait à désigner l'ensemble des Français de souche, selon l'idéologie aryaniste, avec l'objectif de spécialement exclure les Juifs de la nationalité française.

(Under the Vichy régime, the term "French community" was used to indicate those "of French stock", according to the Aryanist ideology, with the aim in particular of excluding Jews from French nationality.)

When locusts move on, they leave nothing behind

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Sat Jul 12th, 2008 at 03:46:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is this real? (none / 1)

Are EU citizens allowed into the military nowadays ?

Auferre, trucidare, rapere, falsis nominibus imperium; atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.

by linca (antonin POINT lucas AROBASE gmail.com) on Sat Jul 12th, 2008 at 03:52:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is this real? (4.00 / 2)

There's always been the Legion...

When locusts move on, they leave nothing behind

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Sat Jul 12th, 2008 at 04:00:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is this real? (none / 1)

This is new to me: I had never heard of the french community in that sense. (The Vichy regime would be refered to as "l'état français").

As for me, "communauté française" may refer to the (failed) attempt to build a commonwealth-like association with former colonies at the end of the fifties.

Do you know where this expression comes from, apart from wikipedia? Is it of a widespread use abroad to design the 1939-1944 period or policies?

by Xavier in Paris on Tue Jul 15th, 2008 at 08:05:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is this real? (none / 1)

A link using the term. Another, from the assemblée nationale website...

Auferre, trucidare, rapere, falsis nominibus imperium; atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.

by linca (antonin POINT lucas AROBASE gmail.com) on Tue Jul 15th, 2008 at 08:32:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is this real? (none / 1)

Forgot to point out that EU citizens in France can vote in some elections.

When locusts move on, they leave nothing behind

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Sat Jul 12th, 2008 at 03:22:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is this real? (none / 1)

Was not the French Community the Fifth Republic equivalent of the British Empire (as it existed before the Statute of Westminster 1931 gave the self governing dominions legal independence)?

by Gary J on Tue Jul 15th, 2008 at 07:10:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is this real? (none / 1)

It also was that, at a point. See the wikipedia disambiguation page afew and I liked to.

Auferre, trucidare, rapere, falsis nominibus imperium; atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.

by linca (antonin POINT lucas AROBASE gmail.com) on Tue Jul 15th, 2008 at 07:16:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

From Libération (none / 1)

Refus d'accorder la nationalité pour port de la burqa: Pécresse approuve
Interrogée sur France Info, Valérie Pécresse a estimé que «le principe de l'égalité des sexes n'est pas négociable dans la République française» et que «le Conseil d'Etat en rendant cette décision a voulu réaffirmer qu'on ne pouvait pas avoir la nationalité française quand on n'adhérait pas à ce principe». «Au-delà même du port de la burqa, il y avait la question du fait que cette femme n'allait pas voter, du fait que cette femme n'avait pas de vie indépendante en dehors des déplacements qu'elle faisait accompagnée de son mari. Je crois que cela n'est pas la République française», a conclu la ministre. Le couple reconnaît son appartenance au salafisme, un courant rigoriste de l'islam. Dans le même temps, Faïza M. a toujours affirmé que, depuis son arrivée en France, elle n'avait jamais cherché à remettre en cause les valeurs de la République.
«D'après ses propres déclarations (Faïza M.) mène une vie presque recluse et retranchée de la société française. Elle n'a aucune idée sur la laïcité ou le droit de vote. Elle vit dans la soumission totale aux hommes de sa famille», souligne Emmanuelle Prada-Bordenave, la commissaire du gouvernement chargée de donner un avis juridique et qui a eu plusieurs entretiens avec le couple, interrogée par le quotidien. D'après elle, ces déclarations sont «révélatrices de l'absence d'adhésion à certaines valeurs fondamentales de la société française».
Le Conseil d'Etat étant la plus haute juridiction administrative, Faïza M. n'a plus de voie de recours.
(...)
Aux termes de l'article 21-2 du code civil, tout étranger contractant mariage avec un Français peut, après un délai de deux ans, acquérir la nationalité française. Mais plusieurs articles de ce même code restreignent ces possibilités.
Ils prévoient ainsi que «nul ne peut être naturalisé s'il n'est pas de bonnes vie et moeurs ou s'il a fait l'objet de l'une des condamnations visées à l'article 21-27 du présent code [condamnation pour crimes ou délits constituant une atteinte aux intérêts fondamentaux de la Nation ou acte de terrorisme, ndlr]».
Autre condition : l'étranger conjoint de Français doit justifier «de son assimilation à la communauté française, notamment par une connaissance suffisante, selon sa condition, de la langue française et des droits et devoirs conférés par la nationalité française». Sa maîtrise de la langue doit plus précisément lui permettre de répondre aux «nécessités de la vie quotidienne». Le gouvernement peut également s'opposer, par décret, à ce qu'un étranger devienne français en cas de défaut d'assimilation, caractérisé notamment par le fait de «répandre des thèses extrémistes manifestant un rejet des valeurs essentielles de la société française».

Certainly sounds like the decision is coherent with applicable law. How much of that law has been toughened recently is not clear to me (probably quite a bit, given that weddings are an increasingly controlled way to get the French nationality), but the decision does not shock me.

As linca said, the French State has been rather consistent in going after the catholic church and its practices in France over the past century and a half, so I don't think there really is such an unfairness in treatment there.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (jeromeguillet@yahoo.fr) on Sat Jul 12th, 2008 at 02:58:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Very real, and an old tradition. (none / 1)

you've never seen a nun insulted in public? I'll let you imagine the sort of insult... But really, no overtly religious are spared.
And its a fact that wearing a veil is an outward sign of religiosity, on top of which inappropriate submission. In the first instance, only poor taste. In the second, a betrayal of republican value of equality.

"C'est un scandale !"

by redstar on Sat Jul 12th, 2008 at 04:46:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Very real, and an old tradition. (4.00 / 2)

No, since the early '70s I have never seen a nun insulted in public in France, I must have missed out...

But the point is what would be the attitude of the Conseil d'Etat to a request from a foreign nun in a traditionalist convent, for French nationality?

When locusts move on, they leave nothing behind

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Sat Jul 12th, 2008 at 04:59:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Very real, and an old tradition. (none / 1)

Hopefully the same. The distinction being, would the government have refused the nun's nationality application ?

Auferre, trucidare, rapere, falsis nominibus imperium; atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.

by linca (antonin POINT lucas AROBASE gmail.com) on Sat Jul 12th, 2008 at 05:23:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Very real, and an old tradition. (4.00 / 2)

I really don't think there would have been any problem from the start. It would be a shoo-in. Dear nun, please accept French nationality... ;)

When locusts move on, they leave nothing behind

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Sun Jul 13th, 2008 at 02:53:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Very real, and an old tradition. (4.00 / 2)

"Hopefully" being the operative word.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Sun Jul 13th, 2008 at 06:30:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

A nun applying for nationality on these grounds .. (none / 1)

... that would mean Jesus is French?

Actually, the three children of the husband would probably lead to a lot more coverage than the story that was diaried.

Utsukushikereba sore de ii

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Sun Jul 13th, 2008 at 11:00:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Very real, and an old tradition. (none / 0)

redstar:

on top of which inappropriate submission.

That is your interpretation. And it may or may not be true. In any case, it should not be within the jurisdiction of the state to make such interpretations.

... all progress depends on the unreasonable mensch.
(apologies to G.B. Shaw)

by marco (cowannar at gmail punkt com) on Sun Jul 20th, 2008 at 01:44:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is this real? (none / 1)

Wow!

C'mon France! I am really looking at you guys carrying on that torch of liberty since my country seems to have dropped the ball lately.

by Jeffersonian Democrat (rzg6f@virginia.edu) on Sat Jul 12th, 2008 at 02:09:30 PM EST

Re: Is this real? (4.00 / 2)

Maybe the reason the ball got dropped in the us is because of the one in three or so who are religious extremist xtianists. After all, we know how they vote... Think of such rulings as an attempt to maintain rather than restrain liberty.

"C'est un scandale !"

by redstar on Sat Jul 12th, 2008 at 04:53:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

This is a difficult argument (none / 1)

But this gives me the impression of intrusion into private family matters.

I mean, if I worshipped cabbage heads, would the government deny me marriage if I walked around the house in a cabbage leaf thong?

well, probably, and commit me as well...

But that is just to point out how arbitrary and absurd this seems.

Someone else pointed out that it wasn't based on the Burka, that was the journalist, but on sexual inequality. Ok, here it gets tricky for me. Was she a slave? Or did she choose to live in a religious and or "traditional" family unit?

Is this any different than intrusion into homosexual relations in the US? I've also know secular couples who voluntarily lived in a loving BDSM "master and slave" relationship. Definitely not sexually equal. Would this law sent precedent for such couples, though rare, as well?

I am by no means a libertarian but this seems rather draconian to me.

On the other hand, I understand the arguments of preserving cultural and political integrity based on Enlightenment principles and even a "traditional" family culture, again very rare, can go to the extremes of such things as honor killings. Such things are simply not acceptable.

But the situation seems to be very sticky and this adjudication seems to be on the draconian side. Unless i am totally missing something here.

by Jeffersonian Democrat (rzg6f@virginia.edu) on Sun Jul 13th, 2008 at 04:44:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is a difficult argument (none / 0)

Does the BDSM couple denies equality for others as well as for themselves ?

And note that neither marriage nor residence are being denied, only nationality.

Auferre, trucidare, rapere, falsis nominibus imperium; atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.

by linca (antonin POINT lucas AROBASE gmail.com) on Sun Jul 13th, 2008 at 06:20:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is a difficult argument (none / 1)

"Does the BDSM couple denies equality for others as well as for themselves ?"
Who cares? If being willing to tell other people how they should live is a disqualification from citizenship then France has a hell of a problem on its hands.

I fail to see how any of this crap is anything other than polite nationalist racism/essentialism, any more than the German bloodline nonsense, the shameful referendum that got passed in Ireland recently to tighten up the citizenship-by-birth rules that were allegedly being exploited by, oh, hundreds of refugees every year. This is subversion of French anti-clericalism to an agenda of fear of Islam.

Nationalism is by definition essentialist and racist at its heart.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Sun Jul 13th, 2008 at 06:29:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is a difficult argument (none / 0)

What's the point of asking to become part of a group if one has no intent of participating in it, does not recognises values it is made of ?

The notion of French nationality that is being used is not racist (A salafist German asking for nationality wouldn't get it) not essentialist (the notion of equality of the sex being certainly new in France over the last 50 years).

Auferre, trucidare, rapere, falsis nominibus imperium; atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.

by linca (antonin POINT lucas AROBASE gmail.com) on Sun Jul 13th, 2008 at 06:52:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is a difficult argument (4.00 / 2)

true,

I guess I equated marriage with citizenship because I am currently in the same situation. I've lived here four years now and we have an appointment at the Standesamt tomorrow to finalized the marriage paperwork. So this kind of story perks my ears up, especially as an immigrant (albeit from the US) and a future European citizen.

I have noticed in speaking with other immigrants, that I may have had an advantage as an American of European descent over immigrants from other countries. I have just not experienced all the hoops to jump through that others have described. It only took me a couple of minutes to sign the necessary forms to extend my visa without any questions asked, really. For others less fortunate, they really get put through the bureaucratic mill, so to speak.

This story simply reminds me of that.

by Jeffersonian Democrat (rzg6f@virginia.edu) on Sun Jul 13th, 2008 at 08:59:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Just curious (none / 1)

Why do you look to France in particular to carry on the torch of liberty? Not thinking of Sarko...

Our knowledge has surpassed our wisdom. --Charu Saxena.

by metavision on Sun Jul 13th, 2008 at 02:46:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Tradition, I guess (none / 1)

since we were the first two parliamentary Nation-States of the Enlightenment. Having not been to France yet, it's hard to say, but it has always appeared to be a great pride in that: Liberty, Fraternity, Equality. I am hoping Sarko's steadily declining popularity is a reflection of that.

But I am sure the Frenchmen and women here will correct me if my impression is incorrect.

by Jeffersonian Democrat (rzg6f@virginia.edu) on Sun Jul 13th, 2008 at 03:39:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"The Human Disease!" (4.00 / 5)

I saw this earlier on my news rounds and had a huge laugh. You can put money on the conservative hate radio folks like Rush Limpbough will pounce on this as evidence of the craziness of the French!

I see it as evidence that the primates in our species are uniformly silly no matter the cultural context.

alohapolitics.com

by Keone Michaels on Sat Jul 12th, 2008 at 02:22:49 PM EST

Re: Is this real? (none / 0)

It would be one thing if she was wearing a stylish head scarf. Then I believe I could be worried about the decision.

It is, after all, not a question of whether she is a member of Dar Islam, but whether she is an assimilated French member of Dar Islam, and with respect to that, it cannot be ignored that a burqa is more than inelegant ... it is positively ugly.

Utsukushikereba sore de ii

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Sun Jul 13th, 2008 at 11:05:13 AM EST

Re: Is this real? (4.00 / 2)

The defense is weak. The various measures against observant muslims in recent years are a thinly veiled racist campaign, abetted by those leftists who are being taken in by the invocations of secularism, from the right. The gender ideology of fundamentalist Islam is ugly, but the steady steps of the past twenty years to undermine France's tradition of absolute tolerance for private beliefs is sad. This is not comparable to the old war on the Church. Nobody then was trying to curb the rights of Catholics as private citizens, believing whatever they wanted, but rather as an institutionalized ideology.

by MarekNYC on Sun Jul 13th, 2008 at 06:55:26 PM EST

Re: Is this real? (4.00 / 2)

And in the meantime, mosques are being built all over France...

Oh, and untold is France's fight against various other sects, from Scientology to Raëlians, with similar motivations.

Salafists are not the only ones being fought against...

Auferre, trucidare, rapere, falsis nominibus imperium; atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.

by linca (antonin POINT lucas AROBASE gmail.com) on Mon Jul 14th, 2008 at 05:37:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Note that the decisions is supported (none / 1)

by both the left and the right. This particular case does not seem to be rightwing ideology gone amok.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (jeromeguillet@yahoo.fr) on Mon Jul 14th, 2008 at 01:22:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is this real? (4.00 / 2)

Interesting point of vue. On what grounds should one get the french nationality (or any other)?

I think the reason the nationality was denied in this particular case is that there is a strong opposition between personal values of the woman and national values as assumed by the court.

Voting rights: her religion denies vote for women, so why ask for a voting right?
Civil rights: the law garantees a right for this woman to free speech, equal rights with her husband, authority on her kids, right to work, drive and dress as a man, all of them being in contradiction with her religion, so why ask for these?
What is nationality apart from that? If you refuse most of the country assumed values, why ask for the nationality? She doesn't even have the worry of asking for new visas, because as a mother of french kids, it is automatically delivered (and valid for ten years, the same as the national identity card).

From the information gathered in the press, I really fail to understand the reasons that led her to asking the nationality. If you come across some more, please let us know.

by Xavier in Paris on Tue Jul 15th, 2008 at 08:26:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Is this real? | 44 comments (44 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]