quote:

---

France has denied citizenship to a veiled Moroccan woman on the grounds that her "radical" practice of Islam is incompatible with basic French values such as equality of the sexes, a legal ruling showed on Friday...."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," said a ruling by the Council of State handed down last month and sent to Reuters on Friday to confirm a report in Le Monde.

---

But she appealed...which isn't all that submissive.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Clearly a racist decision. But is it also sexist?

---

How do you know it´s the decision that´s racist, as opposed to the underlying law that´s racist and the ruling merely reflecting it?

[ 11 July 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by lagatta:
It may be bigoted (if the law is not applied with equal severity to fundies among Christians, Jews or others - like those racist wingnuts in la Fraternité Pie X), but I don't see how it is racist per se. Many countries demand that immigrants show evidence of integration into the host country to grant citizenship.

---

A sticking point in France is the absolute prohibition of any register based on ethnicity or religion. That has its roots in an understandable revulsion against the collaborationists use of registers of Frenchpersons of the Jewish faith, or of "suspicious" nationalities (Armenians etc) but it effectively prevents the application of affirmative action schemes. Many antiracist activists in France do advocate such schemes (which could be based on national origin without any register of confession).

Here, the big problem is funding of confessional education, including some of the most reactionary, women-hating groups (such as the Chassidim).

quote:

---

Originally posted by lagatta:
A sticking point in France is the absolute prohibition of any register based on ethnicity or religion. That has its roots in an understandable revulsion against the collaborationists use of registers of Frenchpersons of the Jewish faith, or of "suspicious" nationalities (Armenians etc) but it effectively prevents the application of affirmative action schemes.

---

I forget when, but it was gradually accepted that affirmative action plans did require such stats.

Could the same ever happen in France, I wonder?

But France will have to come up with some means of making sure young jobseekers do not have their candidacies thrown away because they come from a "tough" housing estate or have the wrong kind of name.

Another problem in France is that the housing market is very tight in major cities, in particular in Paris. Of course it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of racial or national origin, but the bar is set so high that it is easy for landlords to get round that.

Lots of actions against this, by the way.

I do take some kind of exception to this very unusual story getting so much media play, when it is very, very far from the real factors in discrimination against Frenchpeople and immigrants from the Maghreb and West Africa. The burkha is practically unknown in France, and has no roots whatsoever in the countries of origin of the overwhelming majority of Frenchpeople of Muslim faith or background - Maghrebis, West Africans, then a smaller but sizeable community from Lebanon and other places in the Levant, some immigrants from Iraq, Bosnians and other Balkan Muslims etc. Virtually nobody from the Gulf.

quote:

---

"If you follow that to its logical conclusion, it means that women whose partners beat them are also not worthy of being French," Lochak said.

---

quote:

---

Sur cette Terre,
Ma seule joie,
Mon seul bonheur,
C'est mon homme.
J'ai donné tout ce que j'ai:
Mon amour
Et tout mon coeur
A mon homme.
Et même la nuit,
Quand je rêve,
C'est de lui:
De mon homme.
Ce n'est pas qu'il soit beau,
Qu'il soit riche, ni costaud,
Mais je l'aime.
C'est idiot:
Il me fout des coups,
Il me prend mes sous.
Je suis à bout,
Mais malgré tout,
Que voulez-vous?
Je l'ai tellement dans la peau,
J'en suis marteau,
Quand il s'approche, c'est fini,
Je suis à lui.
Quand ses yeux sur moi se posent,
Ça me rend toute chose.
Je l'ai tellement dans la peau,
Qu'au moindre mot,
Il me ferait faire n'importe quoi:
Je tuerai ma foi.
Je sens qu'il me rendrait infâme
Mais je ne suis qu'une femme!
Je l'ai tellement dans la peau,
J'en suis dingo,
Que celle qui n'a pas aussi
Connu ceci
Ose venir la première
Me jeter la pierre!
En avoir un dans la peau,
C'est le pire des maux,
Mais c'est connaître l'amour
Sous son vrai jour.
Et je dis qu'il faut
Qu'on pardonne
Quand une femme se donne
A l'homme qu'elle a dans la peau.
(Mon homme - 1920 - paroles: Albert Willemetz, Jacques-Charles. Musique: Maurice Yvain
Interprètes: Arletty, Annie Duparc, Mistinguett, Edith Piaf, Patachou, Colette Renard)

---

[ 11 July 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

quote:

---

Ta tienne

Tellement je tiens à être tienne
Je fais une croix sur tous mes emblêmes
Sur ma carrière d’amazone
Et sur ma liberté souveraine

Je suis ta tienne, je suis ta tienne, oh oui je suis ta tienne
Ce n'est pas correct, non, mais c’est bon quand même…

Qu’on me maudisse, que l’on me damne,
Moi je m’en balance, oui, je prends tous les blâmes…

Moi qui cherchais toujours les flammes
Je brûle pour toi comme une païenne.

---

The French have a strong sense of French culture that has developed over several hundred years if not a thousand years. For example, over 100 years ago, many people spoke dialects and languages related to French. Now the dominant language is standardized throughout France. This strong sense of culture means that it is very difficult to introduct a concept such as multiculturalism--to go from equality where everyone lives under the same rules to equality of opportuntity where groups of people may be given accomodation to improve their social equality. I can only guess that a French person would say that multiculturalism is the denial of French culture.

quote:

---

Originally posted by martin dufresne:
A female friend makes the excellent point that the husband of this woman (Fazia M.) - the one requiring her to wear a full veil - isn't having his French nationality challenged or rejected. So the decision IS even more sexist than anti-Muslim.
From burqa to niqab to scarf
I think we are rapidly approaching a situation where Muslims - especially women - who wear garb deemed to be religious will be attacked on the street, arrested, prosecuted, expelled from French territory. Some of the people who spoke up at the Bouchard-Taylor hearings were opposed to any wearing of veils or scarves anywhere.

---

As far as I know, the husband was born in France while the woman is applying for citizenship.

I don't think the issue is what she's wearing - it's her "complete submission" to her husband and male relatives. I am sympathetic to the idea that a person who believes and lives in this way should be denied citizenship. It affects the dignity and freedom of all women. And I would certainly include the husband and male relatives if they applied for citizenship!

ETA: just to clarify. It's not (or it shouldn't be) because of the clothes. I don't like seeing women covering their faces but I don't like to see the way a lot of women dress here either. It's two sides of the same (patriarchal) coin in my opinion. So I wouldn't agree with denying her citizenship based on the way she dresses.

[ 12 July 2008: Message edited by: RosaL ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Skinny Dipper:
In France, it is illegal for students to wear religious clothing such as headscarves, turbans, yarmulkes (sp?) in state schools. This is all in the name of equality. Small inconspicuous symbols such as crosses and Stars of David aroundt he neck are OK.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Skinny Dipper:
This strong sense of culture means that it is very difficult to introduct a concept such as multiculturalism--to go from equality where everyone lives under the same rules to equality of opportuntity where groups of people may be given accomodation to improve their social equality. I can only guess that a French person would say that multiculturalism is the denial of French culture.

---

I really don't think the rejection of Trudeau-style multiculturalism in a different cultural and historical framework can be seen as analogous to "white suprematism".

Remember that you still have the problem of funding confessional schools - in Ontario you still haven't achieved true secular education. Even here in Québec where the confessional boards have been abolished - a long struggle - one of the people I know best in it is a "secular Muslim" friend from Morocco - there are still a lot of remnants.

quote:

---

RosaL: ...As far as I know, the husband was born in France while the woman is applying for citizenship.

---

Which suggests a double standard where new nationals have to meet a higher standard than people born in France.

quote:

---

I don't think the issue is what she's wearing - it's her "complete submission" to her husband and male relatives.

---

The original story goes into more detail: "Une Marocaine en burqa se voit refuser la nationalité française".

The elements quoted in it include a) a detailed description of the burqa she wore, b) her (and her husband) belonging to what is deemed a "radical" branch of Islam, c) her recluse life and obedience to the will of the various men of her family, d) her lack of opinion on the issue of secularism ("laicité") or the vote. These findings are interpreted by the commissioners and the appeal court as "total submission" and lack of assimilation of French society's values.

There are practically no circumstances under which a native-born citizen's nationality can be taken away. Paul Bernardo will die a Canadian.

[ 12 July 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by martin dufresne:
I would argue that Faiza M.'s "denial of gender equality" is no actual denial but the commissionner's accusation, based on her answers. There is no indication that Faiza M. was directly asked about her belief in gender equality or lack thereof.
Can you think of the kind of test that would have to be fashioned to verify whether applicants hold this belief? Can you imagine a French public servant concluding: "What, you're not a feminist?! You believe in different roles?! Dehors, madame!!!"
Do you believe these are already fundamental French values justifying using excessive religious belief as a selection factor, over and against secularist principles?
Isn't feminist discourse being being coopted here to serve a racist agenda by such criteria being selectively applied to Muslim women?

[ 12 July 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

---

The Québec equivalent to that crap is "Les Bérets blancs", but most of them seem to have died off.

quote:

---

Originally posted by lagatta:
Michelle, Muslims can also wear discreet religious symbols - the stylised Allah, many others you have seen.

---

Not to mention the obvious fact that the French laws are clearly pandering towards the growing racism towards Muslims. Producing a law that, in practical terms, only affects Muslims and then claiming it's not racist is cute, but not convincing.

quote:

---

Originally posted by lagatta:
I really don't think the rejection of Trudeau-style multiculturalism in a different cultural and historical framework can be seen as analogous to "white suprematism".

---

[ 13 July 2008: Message edited by: TCD ]

We have to remember that young children will be suspicious of everything that is different. It is in fact the first lesson we teach them: "Don't talk to strangers". Parents making their children wear symbols that immediately marks them as different puts the kids at a very high risk of being marked as outsiders, and being ostracized by their schoolmates.

[ 12 July 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

As for the woman, the decision is to refuse citizenship because she is too submissive is ridiculous.

That said, however, she could still have been refused on the same basis as the last time she tried: lack of integration. The fact that she doesn't know that citizenship grants her the right to vote indicates a lack of knowledge on the rights and obligations of citizenship, and that is a valid basis to refuse to grant citizenship. To include her religion in the decision was indecent and unnecessary, only making it appear as sexist and racist.

And before returning to bashing on France, do know that Canada also asks asks the same thing of its immigrant before granting them citizenship:

quote:

---

Adults [s. 5(1)]: the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration shall grant citizenship to adult persons seeking naturalization in Canada provided they
meet the requirements under the Act:
· have been fully lawfully admitted to Canada for permanent residence;
· have resided in Canada for at least 3 of the 4 years preceding the date of the application;
· have an adequate knowledge of French or English;
· have an adequate knowledge of Canada and of the responsibilities and privileges of citizenship;
· are not subject to any prohibitions related to criminal activity; under deportation; or, a threat to national security (ss. 20 and 22).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug:
That knowledge is determined by a written test, however, not by someone looking at what you wear.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by WyldRage:
Ever heard of uniforms in school? The scool and/or state can decide what is acceptable to wear in the school system. In this case, I fully understand why they would ban religious symbols: they could create divisions in the students, a way for them to identify who are the same, and who are different.

---

As for the odious philosophy that children need to be assimiliated for their own protection I think the criminal residential school system showed us what can happen when the State decides that parents aren't capable of teaching their children religion and culture. That ugly chapter of our history was dominated by people who thought that children in First Nations would be much better off if we simply eliminated the "divisions" between children so they all looked and acted the same.

In another extreme, the religious symbols can be made into a sort of gang colour: you wear the symbol, or you're not one of us. This pressure does exist in certain cases for the wearing of the hijab, coming from the parents and/or the child's peers. This was in fact one of the reason for the adoption of the law.

[ 13 July 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by lagatta:
extreme-rightwing radical Islam is our enemy, just as its Christian and Jewish versions are, and just as extreme-right Hinduism and other fundamentalist movements are enemies of progressives, women and LGBT people the world over.

---

quote:

---

(...)dans un pays laïc, ce ne sont pas les individus qui sont « laïcs », ce sont les institutions. La vraie laïcité, c’est la neutralité de l’Etat, pas la neutralité des individus! Le Conseil d’Etat n’a aucune légitimité pour s’immiscer dans la conscience et l’intimité des individus et porter sur eux des jugements sans appel. Ainsi a-t-on appris que « les services sociaux et la police » étaient allés jusqu’à s’enquérir du sexe du gynécologue de la dame!

Une vision coloniale de l’émancipation

Une fois de plus, au nom d’un certain féminisme, on plonge la tête sous l’eau de femmes qu’on s’échine pourtant à qualifier de victimes, et on exclut une femme sous le prétexte paradoxal qu’elle n’est pas assimilée. Faudra-t-il bientôt emprisonner les séropositifs coupables de s’être mal protégés, donner des amendes aux pauvres pour les inciter à la richesse ou punir les victimes d’agression pour leur apprendre à se défendre? (...)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by WyldRage:
It's not only the muslim, it's all religions. The children can't wear items that identify them as being part of one religion or another. The same applies for jews and christians, or any other religion. Here everyone can wear religious symbols, there no one (in school) can: it's simply another form of equality. Frankly, school is not a place for religion.

---

Human Rights Watch expressed the same concern.

quote:

---

Originally posted by lagatta:
The "war on Islam" spearheaded by born-again Christian fundie Bush and his poodle Blair (who shamefully dragged "faith" back into British political life) is no reason not to recognise that extreme-rightwing radical Islam is our enemy, just as its Christian and Jewish versions are, and just as extreme-right Hinduism and other fundamentalist movements are enemies of progressives, women and LGBT people the world over.

---

Maybe you could explain it to the hijab-wearing women who helped out-lesbian and religious school opponent Kathleen Wynne get elected last year.

I think simplistic solutions tend to lead us in bad directions. Assuming that someone is bad because they're religious, or worse, that the State has a right to prevent religious practice, is going to lead us to some ugly places.

[ 13 July 2008: Message edited by: TCD ]

[ 13 July 2008: Message edited by: TCD ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by lagatta:
Michelle, Muslims can also wear discreet religious symbols - the stylised Allah, many others you have seen. How are Muslims more minoritary or racialised than Jews? Half the Jews in France are also from the Maghreb.

---

That's my point. It's discriminatory against observant Muslims AND Jews. There are lots of Jews who believe that they have to cover their head either with a hat or with a kippah, otherwise they are not keeping covenant with God. To them, it's a sin not to.

So, maybe you and I think their belief in these rules is baloney, but to them it's the real deal, and they're being forced by the state to dress like Christians. That is anti-semitic, anti-Islamic, and I think it's racist too, as Jews and Muslims are traditionally racialized in Europe.

How conveeeeeeeeeenient that Christians have no dress requirements in order to observe their religion. The only things Christians ever wear are little tokens like tiny gold crosses on a chain or whatever, and those are just decorations, not religious obligations.

So, the state makes a rule that says, hey, we're going to apply to EVERYONE that no one is allowed to wear religious garb except for tiny tokens. And gosh golly gee, it's just a great big coincidence taht this infringes on minority, racialized, discriminated against religions in the country, but doesn't in the least affect the majority religion from which most of the people of the dominate "race" at least nominally identifies themselves.