Devout Muslim Woman Denied French Citizenship

[Black Dog]

I think the bottom line is that any nation has the right to deny citizenship to whoever they want for whatever reasons. Citizenship isn't a "right."

I would hope those reasons could at least be defensible.

We don't see the Middle East giving us citizenship, letting Westerners live their values over there; and I don't see any threads criticizing that from the people criticizing France-- unless I missed them. Can anyone correct me on that?

Sure: let's model ourselves after some of the dodgiest shitholes in the world. Great plan.

[guyser]

We don't see the Middle East giving us citizenship, letting Westerners live their values over there;

I think they allow it.

They have laws against booze and public displays of affection between non-married people, but those are the laws and the westerners over there follow them.

IOW, the values we hold apart from their laws are for the most part cool.

[Argus]

Why should we care what people look like, wear or believe behind the doors of their home or temple so long as they conform to the laws of our land?

It isn't simply what they do behind their doors, but what the attitude the apparel represents. I will say, though, that few of us see any advantage in having anonymous, faceless bedsheets walking up and down the streets like black ghosts.

Clearly? Not really. I don't really buy into the theory that immigrants are cancers who want to turn our country into carbon copies of their homelands. Most people come here for the superior opportunities our country and way of life presents. Their private lives and beliefs are not really our concern.

There has already been an effort to start up a parrallel legal system in Ontario based on Sharia law. What happens when the numbers of Muslims doubles, then doubles again? What happens when their political power grows? Do you think politicians will not pander to them? They do already.

How many Muslims in Canada would vote in favour of Sharia law now if given the opportunity?

Why do you think our culture is so weak? Our laws and values are derived from 200 years of western philosophy and jurisprudence, yet you envision it as a house of cards that can be toppled by the whim of the minority.

Because the elites in our country are spineless liberals who despise this country's history, culture and traditions, and are ever eager to accomodate newcomers in just about any way the newcomers desire.

Besides, as a conservative, I would have thought that you'd welcome a social turn towards the draconian...

I am not particularly conservative in terms of social conditions, rules or laws. I'm not an ideologue, in fact, as the only consistent indicator you'll find of my positions is practicality.

[Black Dog]

It isn't simply what they do behind their doors, but what the attitude the apparel represents.

And what is that?

I will say, though, that few of us see any advantage in having anonymous, faceless bedsheets walking up and down the streets like black ghosts.

I don't see any advantage to men who leave the house wearing sandals and socks either, but I'm not about to suggest my fashion judgement should prevail as the law of the land. Really: who gives a shit?

There has already been an effort to start up a parrallel legal system in Ontario based on Sharia law.

To go along with similar "parallel legal systems" based on Biblical and Talmudic law. Ontario has allowed Catholic and Jewish faith-based tribunals to settle family law matters on a voluntary basis since 1991, same deal there.

What happens when the numbers of Muslims doubles, then doubles again? What happens when their political power grows? Do you think politicians will not pander to them? They do already

I guess if one assumes all Muslims are fundamentalist radicals, then that would be problematic.

How many Muslims in Canada would vote in favour of Sharia law now if given the opportunity?

Given that you seem privy to the innermost thoughts and desires of all of Canada's 600,000 Muslims, perhaps you can tell me.

Because the elites in our country are spineless liberals who despise this country's history, culture and traditions, and are ever eager to accomodate newcomers in just about any way the newcomers desire.

Okay: like how? Be specific.

[Guest American Woman]

We don't see the Middle East giving us citizenship, letting Westerners live their values over there;

I think they allow it.

They have laws against booze and public displays of affection between non-married people, but those are the laws and the westerners over there follow them.

IOW, the values we hold apart from their laws are for the most part cool.

I know Saudi Arabia doesn't allow it, so I suppose I should have only made reference to Saudi Arabia; but I'm not critical of Saudi Arabia, so I don't see how I could be critical of France without being a hypocrite. I do think nations have a right to determine who they do or don't let become citizens.

Saudi Arabia’s government is keen to protect the status quo and doesn’t want to compromise its cultural values or standard of living by allowing foreigners to become a permanent part of society. Your only route to becoming a naturalised citizen is by marriage to a national; even this, however, doesn’t guarantee citizenship, particularly for non-Muslims. link

[Guest American Woman]

I would hope those reasons could at least be defensible.

By "defensible," of course you mean defensible to you. I'm guessing to those who made the decision their reasons were defensible. At any rate, you can hope that they would be universally defensible, but that doesn't mean they're required to be. That's my only point. Every nation has the right to decide that for itself.

Sure: let's model ourselves after some of the dodgiest shitholes in the world. Great plan.

Your "dodgiest shitholes in the world" comment aside, who said anything about modeling ourselves after them? Here's what I said: We don't see the Middle East giving us citizenship, letting Westerners live their values over there; and I don't see any threads criticizing that from the people criticizing France-- unless I missed them. Can anyone correct me on that? So my comment was in regards to the criticism of France while I haven't seen the same criticism directed at countries like Saudi Arabia, which is an entirely different issue from modeling ourselves after them.

Furthermore, I'm not saying whether or not I agree with France's decision; the fact remains that France has a right to accept or reject whomever it pleases for citizenship. I don't have to agree with all of their decisions, France still has that right. Do you disagree?

[Black Dog]

By "defensible," of course you mean defensible to you. I'm guessing to those who made the decision their reasons were defensible. At any rate, you can hope that they would be universally defensible, but that doesn't mean they're required to be. That's my only point. Every nation has the right to decide that for itself.

Just as I have a right to question the rationale. All you're doing is stating the obvious.

So my comment was in regards to the criticism of France while I haven't seen the same criticism directed at countries like Saudi Arabia, which is an entirely different issue from modeling ourselves after them.

The point I was making was that you might not see any explicit criticism of Saudi Arabia et al's citizenship policies (though I'm sure you could if you looked hard enough) that has little to do with the issue of whether or not such policies are good ones.

Furthermore, I'm not saying whether or not I agree with France's decision; the fact remains that France has a right to accept or reject whomever it pleases for citizenship. I don't have to agree with all of their decisions, France still has that right. Do you disagree?

I'm saying the right to decide who stays and who goes is not the issue.

[WIP]

It isn't simply what they do behind their doors, but what the attitude the apparel represents. I will say, though, that few of us see any advantage in having anonymous, faceless bedsheets walking up and down the streets like black ghosts.

Any form of costumed dress that adherents of any particular religion are required to adopt signifies that they are either willingly or unwillingly under the control of the religious institution that demands specific dress codes -- and that goes for the Mennonites too!

If you recall a few weeks back when those crazy polygamous Mormons were the big story -- all of the women, both young and old, wore exactly the same type of dresses that were apparently allowed in two or three different colours. And they only had two choices for hair styles! The old wives had their hair more tightly braided, while the younger women seemed to be allowed a more radical, 1950's style hairdo. The women who were taken into custody had the prison doors that kept them sequestered, opened to mainstream society, but few, if any will walk out those doors, even if the State of Texas gives them the opportunity to take their children with them!

Everything they have valued, from other family relationships to religious beliefs, is all ties up at that polygamous compound. And I think a similar thing happens with Muslim women who move to the West, but bring their burqas and niqabs with them -- they may have a husband, father or brother, at home who has threatened to kill them if they dare step out in public improperly dressed, or because they have grown up brainwashed that women need to bring their cloth prisons with them when they step out in public, they may insist on it! Opening the prison doors does not guarantee that the prisoners will want to leave!

There has already been an effort to start up a parrallel legal system in Ontario based on Sharia law. What happens when the numbers of Muslims doubles, then doubles again? What happens when their political power grows? Do you think politicians will not pander to them? They do already.

How many Muslims in Canada would vote in favour of Sharia law now if given the opportunity?

Actually, the sharia fiasco here in Ontario may the silver lining of this dark cloud, because it was two Muslim women's advocacy groups who shot down the Sharia Tribunals Plan. McGuinty was going to pass it, and the feminist leaders over here who are supposed to be looking out for women's rights -- were paralyzed by the desire to be politically correct and appease Muslim allies on the Left, so they had nothing to say on the issure. Marion Boyd, the former N.D.P. attorney general destroyed whatever credibility she still had, when she led the Ontario government committee that would have approved the plan! The only thing that stopped sharia tribunals were the Muslim immigrant women who weren't afraid to speak out against a judicial system that a number of women testified they had to endure in their countries of origin -- the idea of facing a panel of male clerics in a sharia tribunal that uses laws that favour men over women, was a little too much for them to take!

Because the elites in our country are spineless liberals who despise this country's history, culture and traditions, and are ever eager to accomodate newcomers in just about any way the newcomers desire.

I am not particularly conservative in terms of social conditions, rules or laws. I'm not an ideologue, in fact, as the only consistent indicator you'll find of my positions is practicality.

The only reservations I have about this issue is how it has been played by Christian nationalists who want to use the spectre of terrorism and Muslim immigration to advance Christian religious agendas and encourage war in the Middle East. This is not as big a concern here in Canada as it is in the U.S. and even in Europe, where both the present and previous popes have used fears of Muslim immigration to criticize secularism and argue for a return of Catholic rule. A more rational decision would be the one the French government is apparently taking now: try to identify Muslims who will not be willing to adapt to a secular society, and stop them at the gates before they move in!

[WIP]

To go along with similar "parallel legal systems" based on Biblical and Talmudic law. Ontario has allowed Catholic and Jewish faith-based tribunals to settle family law matters on a voluntary basis since 1991, same deal there.

Actually, McGuinty had to axe the Jewish and Catholic faith-based tribunals as well, so that it wouldn't appear that the Muslim tribunals were unfairly targeted.

[Argus]

And what is that?

The message is that "I am not of you. I am an outsider. I am not part of your community". That is what the burqua says here in Canada. The attitude of the wearer is that their culture is what they live by and intend to continue to live by - and that culture is hostile to almost everything our culture represents. Why should we bring in masses of people from a culture which is hostile to our own when we have the choice of bringing in people from cultures which are considerably more amenable to ours?

I don't see any advantage to men who leave the house wearing sandals and socks either, but I'm not about to suggest my fashion judgment should prevail as the law of the land. Really: who gives a shit?

It's not a fashion judgment. It's a judgment of humanity. The wearers of these outfits depersonalize themselves. They make themselves into anonymous figures rather than people who one might expect to interact with. They close themselves off from the rest of those around them.

To go along with similar "parallel legal systems" based on Biblical and Talmudic law. Ontario has allowed Catholic and Jewish faith-based tribunals to settle family law matters on a voluntary basis since 1991, same deal there.

Not the same deal as one can be fairly confident that the arbiters of those other cultures grew up here and have a Western outlook on life, with all that says about their values and judgement. Sharia is a medieval law which has never been adapted to the modern era, never mind to western values. And as far as I'm aware all of the would-be judges are foreign born - and the mere fact they want these courts here says they are completely unadapted to Canada's values.

I guess if one assumes all Muslims are fundamentalist radicals, then that would be problematic.

By our western secular yardstick almost all Muslims are fundamentalist radicals. Even if not all of them are violent about it.

[DogOnPorch]

The message is that "I am not of you. I am an outsider. I am not part of your community". That is what the burqua says here in Canada. The attitude of the wearer is that their culture is what they live by and intend to continue to live by - and that culture is hostile to almost everything our culture represents. Why should we bring in masses of people from a culture which is hostile to our own when we have the choice of bringing in people from cultures which are considerably more amenable to ours?

It's not a fashion judgment. It's a judgment of humanity. The wearers of these outfits depersonalize themselves. They make themselves into anonymous figures rather than people who one might expect to interact with. They close themselves off from the rest of those around them.

Not the same deal as one can be fairly confident that the arbiters of those other cultures grew up here and have a Western outlook on life, with all that says about their values and judgement. Sharia is a medieval law which has never been adapted to the modern era, never mind to western values. And as far as I'm aware all of the would-be judges are foreign born - and the mere fact they want these courts here says they are completely unadapted to Canada's values.

By our western secular yardstick almost all Muslims are fundamentalist radicals. Even if not all of them are violent about it.

I find myself in agreement with all your points on this one. Especially the last one.

---------------------------------------

When you see flashing police lights in your mirror...stop immediately. You know if they have to come and get you, they're going to be bringing an azz kicking with them.

---

[Black Dog]

The message is that "I am not of you. I am an outsider. I am not part of your community". That is what the burqua says here in Canada. The attitude of the wearer is that their culture is what they live by and intend to continue to live by - and that culture is hostile to almost everything our culture represents. Why should we bring in masses of people from a culture which is hostile to our own when we have the choice of bringing in people from cultures which are considerably more amenable to ours?

Is every clothing choice a political one, or only those made by foreigners? Because I'm dying to know what the political subtext of Tevas-and-Work Warehouse is.

I mean, another interpretation of the wearing of ethnic garb could be: "This is the clothing I grew up wearing and in which I feel comfortable." Or "I retain my ethnic garb so as not to lose touch with where I come from." The possibilities are many. While you may believe Muslims obsess over how best to show their disdain for the decadent west through their personal choices, I have a funny feeling that is not the case.

It's not a fashion judgment. It's a judgment of humanity. The wearers of these outfits depersonalize themselves. They make themselves into anonymous figures rather than people who one might expect to interact with. They close themselves off from the rest of those around them.

There's a price to be paid for living in a free society and that is people are free to behave and dress in ways that might make you uncomfortable. In my neighbourhood, it's not uncommon to see orthodox Jewish families strolling about on Sundays dressed like 19th century undertakers, with the men in front and the women trailing dutifully behind. Yet somehow, someway, I'm able to view the ZZ Top beards, Doc Holiday hats and frumpy frocks as an expression of their culture and beliefs as opposed to a middle finger to secular values.

Not the same deal as one can be fairly confident that the arbiters of those other cultures grew up here and have a Western outlook on life, with all that says about their values and judgement. Sharia is a medieval law which has never been adapted to the modern era, never mind to western values. And as far as I'm aware all of the would-be judges are foreign born - and the mere fact they want these courts here says they are completely unadapted to Canada's values.

Yet curiously, people from the same community you lambaste opposed the initiative and were responsible for having it kiboshed. But you'd throw people like Homa Ajormand out with the bathwater.

By our western secular yardstick almost all Muslims are fundamentalist radicals. Even if not all of them are violent about it.

Almost all? What percentage, precisely? Sunnis? Shia? Sufi?

I'm genuinely curious as to where you're getting your insider information from. Public opinion polls show Canadian Muslims as among the best integrated of just about any in the west as well as a high level of satisfaction with their lives here.

[CANADIEN]

It's not a fashion judgment. It's a judgment of humanity. The wearers of these outfits depersonalize themselves.

Better to depersonalize people through slavery, right?

[CANADIEN]

I always find it interesting those who scream "our culture is superior" the loudest are the first to reject some of the pillars of western societies when it suits their prejudice:

- freedom of expression

- freedom to choose how to live one's life

- presumption of innocence

- fair trials

- freedom of religion

- fundamental rights

[CANADIEN]

I am no big fan of the burqa... but how another person dresses isss not of my business. And between that and clothing so short you can almost figure the typing font used for the label on the underwear...

Edited July 25, 2008 by CANADIEN

[CANADIEN]

I'm genuinely curious as to where you're getting your insider information from. Public opinion polls show Canadian Muslims as among the best integrated of just about any in the west as well as a high level of satisfaction with their lives here.

Interestingly, some opiiinion polls that American Muslims are no more likely to feel Muslims first and Americans second that evengelical Christians are to feel Christians first and American second.

Or to think that violence that kills civilians can sometimes be justified.

[Richie777]

This may be seen as the State infringing on the rights of the Individual or it may just be the French government protecting its citizens from a group of people who are totally incompatible with Western society and who refuse to adapt to their new country. Tough call either way, but given the riots in France over the last couple of years, I can't really blame the French for this.

[CANADIEN]

This may be seen as the State infringing on the rights of the Individual or it may just be the French government protecting its citizens from a group of people who are totally incompatible with Western society and who refuse to adapt to their new country. Tough call either way, but given the riots in France over the last couple of years, I can't really blame the French for this.

Considering that riots are a well established French political tradition, it could be argued that this how young Muslim immigrants choose to integrate.

Now, the French government is perfectly free to push the notion of securalism to the point of banning virtually any display of religious identity (not that I agree with them), but would they apply the same criteria to evangelical Christian immigrants who demonstrated every Saturday morning on the Cahmps-Elysées that France is gonna be destroyed by God's wrath? After all, extreme secularism should apply in an uniform fashion.

[DogOnPorch]

Considering that riots are a well established French political tradition, it could be argued that this how young Muslim immigrants choose to integrate.

Now, the French government is perfectly free to push the notion of securalism to the point of banning virtually any display of religious identity (not that I agree with them), but would they apply the same criteria to evangelical Christian immigrants who demonstrated every Saturday morning on the Cahmps-Elysées that France is gonna be destroyed by God's wrath? After all, extreme secularism should apply in an uniform fashion.

There was nothing 'traditional' about the way those bored youths torched 1000s of cars and attacked firemen trying to put them out.

--------------------------------------

I am what I am what I am.

---Popeye the Sailor Man

[JB Globe]

Your words. Not mine.

If you don't want people to make assumptions about your argument, than you need to actually EXPLAIN YOURSELF.

Next time post more than an inflammatory sentence - we can't read your mind.

[JB Globe]

That particular woman and many women like her either know no different in terms of woman's rights

You don't know that at all. Please cite me where in the article it tells you her knowledge of women's rights?

Because right now it looks like you're talking out of your ass.

You're just simply continuing your tenancy of filling in the blanks with your prejudice against Islam by ASSUMING all Muslim women who wear any kind of head covering are doing so because their dad's have forced or brainwashed them into doing it.

[JB Globe]

Why should Canada bring into this country people whose values are the antithesis of our own?

Now, in your books, do these antithetical views include all women who choose for themselves to wear hijab, or do they only include sexist views?

[JB Globe]

We don't see the Middle East giving us citizenship, letting Westerners live their values over there;

There's two very obvious reasons for that - one, I live in the West, not the Middle East, so I'm more likely to criticize things that happen in my home country than in another country (newsflash, we all do this). Two - we advertise ourselves as an open society for immigrants, Saudi Arabia doesn't.

As such, if we don't live up to our own hype, we're going to face criticism.

[Guest American Woman]

QUOTE=American Woman: We don't see the Middle East giving us citizenship, letting Westerners live their values over there;

There's two very obvious reasons for that - one, I live in the West, not the Middle East, so I'm more likely to criticize things that happen in my home country than in another country (newsflash, we all do this). Two - we advertise ourselves as an open society for immigrants, Saudi Arabia doesn't.

As such, if we don't live up to our own hype, we're going to face criticism.

Newsflash. This isn't about Canada. It's about France. So it has nothing to do with "[your] own hype." So does France advertise itself as an open society for immigrants? I hardly think so since "criteria taken into account for granting French citizenship includes 'assimilation,'" and France has that right; which was the only point I was making. France has the right to protect its culture.

[Wild Bill]

There's two very obvious reasons for that - one, I live in the West, not the Middle East, so I'm more likely to criticize things that happen in my home country than in another country (newsflash, we all do this). Two - we advertise ourselves as an open society for immigrants, Saudi Arabia doesn't.

As such, if we don't live up to our own hype, we're going to face criticism.

Not that I might disagree anyway, but when you say that we're an open society for immigrants, I don't recall ever being asked my preferences by any politician or party in my entire life!

It just happened. It became policy and that was that, period and end of story.

Has the Canadian public ever been asked how they feel about this? There never seems to have been any true debate in Parliament over the years. No politician of any party would touch this one with a ten foot pole. If the subject is brought up more informally it always degenerates into accusations of racism, which is absurd since it's really all about culture and not race. Or defensive comparisons to the immigrants who helped develop Canada after WWII, which is a very poor comparison since those immigrants were mostly young, hard-working folks just starting out in life while today the bulk of our immigration seems to come from family reunification. Grandparents usually don't come here to work in the construction trade.

Saudi Arabia might be an extreme case but it may actually be more democratic in its policy, as to reflecting the wishes of its people. Certainly, any country that can preserve a strong unified culture is more likely to be successful in surviving in this modern world.

Still, if the idea of democracy is a government that at least tries to follow the wishes and values of its people, how can we even tell if our system is being democratic?