Devout Muslim Woman Denied French Citizenship

[Rue]

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.

Its interesting American Woman. What is happening in France by no means is unique to France although for the context of your response of course its accurate since you are referring to its sovereign right to make its own laws.

Surely we are all aware that in all "Western" nations where we hold ourselves to "democratic" values and "freedom of belief and speech and religion" and as a result frown upon the state and religion being connected and draft elaborate bill of rights, charter of rights and constitutions to codify such freedoms, we are now faced with the reality that some of the peoples are laws intend to protect do not wish to be democratic, do not wish to seperate their religion from state, are not tolerant of the belief of others, do not want to be defined as individuals in the manner we define ourselves in Western democracies and come to our countries with conflicted values.

On the one hand they come for the same reason anyone comes-seeking better economic opportunity. On the other hand, some of these people believe their religion is the only one, and anyone who does not subscribe to it is inferior. So they will take full advantage of the freedoms we provide to defend their values.

For them its not a matter of assimilating or tolerating, it is a matter of consolidating a base for their community from which then to isolate anyone not a member of that community.

The fact is we bleeding heart liberals must come to grips with the fact that not all immigrants and not all Muslims are interested in our values and have no intention of adapting to them. Maybe their children or their children's children may to certain levels and degrees but them, no.

What France is faced with is the same xenophobia that naturally results from the same racism that assumes there is such thing as a unique French culture. French culture is what? Why its like any other culture in the West-built on slave labour-imported slaves brought in from wars to build and then be discarded. Please, Romans, Greeks were what if not rapists and pillagers? The French. Right their civilization and culture is based on stolen artificats from other nations.

That is not the issue.

The issue now is Western Europe built itself on the backs of colonies and savages who now demand access to their countries. Yegads the world has shrunk and any swarthy savage can get on a plane and show up on our doorsteps with their robes and beards and smelly foods.

Where does one retreat to now where pink was the universal colour of skin?

Part of what we see is racism. The clash of different race and ethnic values that are not comptabile and no not only pink people are racist-all colours and tones are equally as racist or as I like to say smelly.

Show me a human, I will show you body odour. We all smell.

That said, a line is being drawn. No it can not be in any society where we try tolerate and act "civilized" will it be rational to think all people will want to assimilate and tolerate each other.

Aint happening.

So pick your poison. You do what France is now doing which is an attempt to impose a unified vision all French must be willing to follow (the melting pot theory, which is of course the U.S. approach) or you take the Canadian approach which is to pretend to be able to be all things to all people while in fact a set of discriminatory rules for cultural acceptability comes about anyways out of necessity. Oh we call it multi-culturalism but its simply the Canadian way. We smile when we create our selective values we all must conform to. We don't call it discrimination, we call it national interest.

Bottom line, some people may resist shaving but eventually, they shave or they find themselves restricted no matter how much we liberals deny that is what is happening.

It is what we humans do. Create tiers of privilege to protect our power bases. The body odour changes in aroma depending on who is in charge of the hen housebut it always remains pugnant.

As a Jew born into a legacy of a world where I have always been a minority looking in no matter how assimilated by people have become it is all an existential absurdity.

To me cultural is nothing more then a pretense to get into someone's pants.

[JB Globe]

Newsflash. This isn't about Canada. It's about France.

Than why are you talking about the Middle East?

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,'"

France's mantra has been that if you assimilate, you get to be considered fully-French, regardless of where you're from and what you look like. However, this hasn't been the case at all.

[JB Globe]

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.

It's quite simple, if politicians are doing things the public doesn't like, the public votes them out. If the Canadian public is unhappy with this country's immigration policy, they need to take political action.

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?

Well, we can look at polling data, which suggests that while people may have problems with specific policies, most Canadian are supportive of immigration and multiculturalism in general.

[Guest American Woman]

Its interesting American Woman. What is happening in France by no means is unique to France although for the context of your response of course its accurate since you are referring to its sovereign right to make its own laws.

I'm referring to France's sovereign right to make its own laws, but even more so its right to look out for itself, it's citizens, and their way of life.

The fact is we bleeding heart liberals must come to grips with the fact that not all immigrants and not all Muslims are interested in our values and have no intention of adapting to them. Maybe their children or their children's children may to certain levels and degrees but them, no.

What I've been reading about radical European Muslims is that a lot of the problem is with second and third generation Muslims.

What France is faced with is the same xenophobia that naturally results from the same racism that assumes there is such thing as a unique French culture. French culture is what? Why its like any other culture in the West-built on slave labour-imported slaves brought in from wars to build and then be discarded. Please, Romans, Greeks were what if not rapists and pillagers? The French. Right their civilization and culture is based on stolen artificats from other nations.

I was referring to culture as their present day way-of-life, and their way of life is different from Morocco's way of life. Hence I see the two nations as having different cultures, and I can understand why both would want to preserve their way of life.

The issue now is Western Europe built itself on the backs of colonies and savages who now demand access to their countries. Yegads the world has shrunk and any swarthy savage can get on a plane and show up on our doorsteps with their robes and beards and smelly foods.

Where does one retreat to now where pink was the universal colour of skin?

Part of what we see is racism. The clash of different race and ethnic values that are not comptabile and no not only pink people are racist-all colours and tones are equally as racist or as I like to say smelly.

I don't see it as racism. I see it as trying to preserve what's theirs. France has had problems with fundamentalist Muslims, and if they want to take measures to make sure the problem doesn't get worse, I see that as their right. Furthermore, where there is a problem from clashes of culture, the country has to provide the police necessary to deal with the problems, and France may not feel as if it can take on any more problems with 'cultural clashes.' I think a nation has to take a long hard look at such issues when granting citizenship.

Maybe I'm not saying it right, but I don't think one has to be racist to have the desire to preserve one's way of life.

....a line is being drawn. No it can not be in any society where we try tolerate and act "civilized" will it be rational to think all people will want to assimilate and tolerate each other.

Aint happening.

So pick your poison. You do what France is now doing which is an attempt to impose a unified vision all French must be willing to follow (the melting pot theory, which is of course the U.S. approach) or you take the Canadian approach which is to pretend to be able to be all things to all people while in fact a set of discriminatory rules for cultural acceptability comes about anyways out of necessity. Oh we call it multi-culturalism but its simply the Canadian way. We smile when we create our selective values we all must conform to. We don't call it discrimination, we call it national interest.

I think it is "national interest." From what I understand, France isn't denying this woman the right to live in France, just citizenship. All of our nations have a set of guidelines that one must comply with in order to be granted the privilege of citizenship; and that's what it is, a privilege, not a right.

It's like you said regarding some immigrants:

....they come for the same reason anyone comes-seeking better economic opportunity. On the other hand, some of these people believe their religion is the only one, and anyone who does not subscribe to it is inferior. So they will take full advantage of the freedoms we provide to defend their values.

For them its not a matter of assimilating or tolerating, it is a matter of consolidating a base for their community from which then to isolate anyone not a member of that community.

When people come to our nations not because they love our nations, I don't think we own them citizenship. I think France has a right, in this case, to defend its values.

I think in some cases, such as you described, immigrants have to choose whether they want the "economic opportunity" or their "traditional values" more, because I don't think we're obligated to give them both; at least not in the form of citizenship. I think nations have the right to preserve their way of life and not risk losing it. That's how I see France's decision, and as such, I stand behind it.

[Rue]

I'm referring to France's sovereign right to make its own laws, but even more so its right to look out for itself, it's citizens, and their way of life.

I think in some cases, such as you described, immigrants have to choose whether they want the "economic opportunity" or their "traditional values" more, because I don't think we're obligated to give them both; at least not in the form of citizenship. I think nations have the right to preserve their way of life and not risk losing it. That's how I see France's decision, and as such, I stand behind it.

Yah.

You know Yankeelass I have always been ambivalent about France. One the one hand having lived there a bit and quite capable of having lived there longer I was very aware that it will always have certain isms at the pith and substance of its cultural imperative. I didn't find it much different then other countries in that respect although I had some classic anti-semitic experiences. For me personally, I find all chauvenistic tendencies have facistic traits. Fine line between that and Liberalism for me some days. What gives one a strong identity is the fact they use the guise of social acceptance to exclude certain values and colours and exercise the right to select and impose the values and colours we all must endorse.

Human nature. Primal ape behaviour.

To me nationality, is the inflamed red butt structure on a baboon's rump. Each baboon leader shows his rump. Each one is allegedly unique and how the baboon leader prances and stick it out is how they establish their identit and territory.

Primates with inflammed red butts is all we are. Nationality, religion, culture, yah yah yah-its just red inflammed butts.Some of us take it very seriously. Lord knows my people are cursed by its implications.

It's just I am tired with celebrating baboon butts.

If I have to choose anything today from France it would be Carla Bruni's butt. Now that is worthy of worship. The rest world-wide, bah. Its all just one large noise of billions of apes screaming over the same banana.

France I suppose can try protect its culture. So will all of Europe. But who is kidding who-the final evolution of what happens when humans screw each other is anyone's guess-but I am thinking the world is gonna look mocha java light caramel when all is said and done. Billions of Jennifer Lopez types.

Nothing wrong with that.

Edited August 6, 2008 by Rue

[Guest American Woman]

France I suppose can try protect its culture. So will all of Europe. But who is kidding who-the final evolution of what happens when humans screw each other is anyone's guess-but I am thinking the world is gonna look mocha java light caramel when all is said and done. Billions of Jennifer Lopez types.

Nothing wrong with that.

No, there is nothing wrong with that. But this isn't about the color of one's skin; it's about the way people live their lives. That's what France is referring to by "assimilation," not skin color. Protecting one's way of life, protecting and preserving one's values, is something completely different than trying to preserve, for example, the genetics of blue eyed blonds. As I pointed out, life is France is completely different from life in the Middle East, so if France wants to protect its way of life, who can fault that?

[Rue]

No, there is nothing wrong with that. But this isn't about the color of one's skin; it's about the way people live their lives. That's what France is referring to by "assimilation," not skin color. Protecting one's way of life, protecting and preserving one's values, is something completely different than trying to preserve, for example, the genetics of blue eyed blonds. As I pointed out, life is France is completely different from life in the Middle East, so if France wants to protect its way of life, who can fault that?

Sorry just read your response. Totally concur. Whether its realistic or not we leave to destiny and history to say. Some changes are inevitable.

Me personally I find the fundamentalist Muslim ( and any other society based on fundamentalist religious beliefs that can not be questioned) and the Chinese social models very scary. I am not too impressed with the new/old Russian social model either.

Say now Amgal, do you want 4 husbands? Imagine such silliness. Imagine all the toilet seats left up in your house. Me I find one wife enough. I am always in trouble. I can't imagine 4 going after me at the same time. I have two daughters. When they were growing up it was 3 against 1. It explains why I twitch all the time now.

Edited August 23, 2008 by Rue

[Guest American Woman]

Say now Amgal, do you want 4 husbands? Imagine such silliness. Imagine all the toilet seats left up in your house. Me I find one wife enough. I am always in trouble. I can't imagine 4 going after me at the same time. I have two daughters. When they were growing up it was 3 against 1. It explains why I twitch all the time now.

I don't think Muslim wives are allowed too "go after" their husbands, so that might help explain it. But I know what you mean. I watch a show on HBO called Big Love about polygamists, and I have to wonder why any one man would want to take all that on. Twitches galore, I'm sure.

[Argus]

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?

We can certainly start out with all women who choose to wear the hijab - and all men who think they should.

Edited August 24, 2008 by Argus

[Mr.Canada]

This is a good thing. If a newcomer refuses to assimilate into their chosen country why should they be allowed citizenship. The person has already demonstrated that she doesn't wish to take part in a normal lifestyle, enjoyed by the majority. Why would a person go to a country they hate?

[Chris in KW]

We can certainly start out with all women who choose to wear the hijab - and all men who think they should.

Argus, your original point was that the hijab or niqab is a signal, from someone who wears it, that they somehow don't like Canada, and want to be separate.

Two points:

1. The niqab is a signal that the husband doesn't want YOU to see his wife's face. That's all. It's probably also a signal that the family is morally conservative, but I don't think that's a crime here.

2. There is a long tradition in Canada of people living in separate communities (Amish, Hutterite, etc). These groups are very conservative, and they don't like many of our society's values. Again, you or i might not like that, but we don't kick people out of our country just because they're not mainstream.

[Chris in KW]

This is a good thing. If a newcomer refuses to assimilate into their chosen country why should they be allowed citizenship. The person has already demonstrated that she doesn't wish to take part in a normal lifestyle, enjoyed by the majority. Why would a person go to a country they hate?

Are you proposing an Un-Canadian Activities committee so that we can start blacklisting everyone who doesn't fit your ideas of what's normal? Nice one, Senator McCarthy!

By the way, yes, there probably are some people in Canada who really don't like our country. And guess what, there are also some things I hate about our country.

But none of that gives you the right to decide, BY LOOKING AT SOMEONE, who "deserves" to get citizenship.

[Molly]

Chris.... who says it's a husband's decision?

It's interesting that you would assume that a woman would not make such a choice all on her little lonesome. Many do.

[Chris in KW]

Chris.... who says it's a husband's decision?

It's interesting that you would assume that a woman would not make such a choice all on her little lonesome. Many do.

True, women are supporters of the veil as well, and some women make the choice themselves.

My main point is valid, which is that the point of the veil is to prevent "strange men" from looking at a woman's face, and thereby being tempted/whatever.

I'll also add that in my (admittedly limited) experience, a couple young muslim women I know have put on hijab at the request of their boyfriend/husband. I also know an older woman who wears it occasionally (ie during Ramadan) of her own free will.

Edited February 4, 2009 by Chris in KW

[jbg]

A Libertarian would say that a woman (a person) should be free to wear anything she wants. Argus would argue that the State has the right to control who lives on our common territory.

I think both are right. I think the threshold is that we have the right to determine who will become citizens of the Western countries and, if non-citizens who can remain. Once an outsider is allowed in, they come here, they play by our rules.

[Molly]

One of the rules is that "WE" make the rules, and anyone who becomes part of the "WE" contributes to that task.

Once allowed in "THEY" _are_ "WE", and 'their'/OUR opinion matters.

The definition of "WE" seems to be the part some folks struggle with.

[jbg]

One of the rules is that "WE" make the rules, and anyone who becomes part of the "WE" contributes to that task.

Once allowed in "THEY" _are_ "WE", and 'their'/OUR opinion matters.

The definition of "WE" seems to be the part some folks struggle with.

That shouldn't be too hard a definition. Besides situation involving flight from war zones how often do you hear about Afghanis hankering to get into other Islamic paradises such as Sudan? They are coming to reap the advantages of what we built. That is fine with me, as long as they don't try to dictate what cartoons run in our papers.

[Oleg Bach]

The international social engineers who want to bring humanity to it's begging knees will stop at nothing to take the dignity that they think is troublesome to their agenda... Take the "promise ring" that virgin girls will wear that states they will only have sex with who they marry - THAT ideal is being smashed ---- the Nazi debasers are telling these girl that they can not be virgins! What they state is "You will not have human dignity as a young human female - you will be a whore as instructed ...and you are not special and your vagina is common property of the public and the perverse state!

[Rue]

Just as a country isn't obliged to grant it's citizenship to anybody. Other than through an established process. Whether it was following in this specific case, a court will decide.

There's nothing "Left" or "Right" in this case. It's all about the law and due process.

Isn't it interesting. You, I and Leafless agree on something. That must be a first.

Excellent effort at stating the legal issue involved. I commend you for dettaching your personal opinions or feelings from your response and stating the legal issues susinctly. Bang on.

I think we shall see a lot more of this approach before things are done not just in France but other countries.

Where the politics will end due legal process will begin in resolving such issues is anyone's guess.

I would suspect there is a pendulum effect as to how much a society is willing to tolerate influenced by the economic and social conditions of the day.

Edited March 11, 2009 by Rue

[Oleg Bach]

The French would not have a problem taking in some aging old crook who plunders a nation. A respectable woman - might disrupt all that righteous secularization that breeds more and more free woman who are sexually accessable to all - what good is a good woman if you can't use her..?

[kimmy]

The international social engineers who want to bring humanity to it's begging knees will stop at nothing to take the dignity that they think is troublesome to their agenda... Take the "promise ring" that virgin girls will wear that states they will only have sex with who they marry - THAT ideal is being smashed ---- the Nazi debasers are telling these girl that they can not be virgins! What they state is "You will not have human dignity as a young human female - you will be a whore as instructed ...and you are not special and your vagina is common property of the public and the perverse state!

uh huh. That's great, Oleg. Keep doing what you do.

-k

[Argus]

One of the rules is that "WE" make the rules, and anyone who becomes part of the "WE" contributes to that task.

Once allowed in "THEY" _are_ "WE", and 'their'/OUR opinion matters.

The definition of "WE" seems to be the part some folks struggle with.

Which is why I don't want to allow them in, or at least, not fully in. I want newcomers who will embrace this country, and not look constantly to their old home as their REAL home. If you think this is a filthy place with Godless men and all the women are whores, and we're all morally bankrupt and you have no intention of ever assimliating or letting your kids act like Canadian kids - I don't want you here. That's the kind of person we should be screening out before they buy their tickets.

[Argus]

True, women are supporters of the veil as well, and some women make the choice themselves.

My main point is valid, which is that the point of the veil is to prevent "strange men" from looking at a woman's face, and thereby being tempted/whatever.

I'll also add that in my (admittedly limited) experience, a couple young muslim women I know have put on hijab at the request of their boyfriend/husband. I also know an older woman who wears it occasionally (ie during Ramadan) of her own free will.

I happen to know a number of young women. If their husbands/boyfriends tried to get them to wear a veil and a black sheet they'd be their ex husbands/boyfriends. If they tried to get them to wear long skirts and colourless baggy clothes they'd have the same results. Canadian women don't tend to want their hubbies telling them how to dress.

The problem is the culture of muslims - immigrants - is to do what they're told by the men in their lives, which is why I want as few of them here as possible. And the same goes for their men.

Edited March 13, 2009 by Argus

[Argus]

1. The niqab is a signal that the husband doesn't want YOU to see his wife's face. That's all. It's probably also a signal that the family is morally conservative, but I don't think that's a crime here.

Didn't say it was a crime, just an indication of how hostile they are to our value system.

2. There is a long tradition in Canada of people living in separate communities (Amish, Hutterite, etc). These groups are very conservative, and they don't like many of our society's values. Again, you or i might not like that, but we don't kick people out of our country just because they're not mainstream.

The Amish and Hutterites live by themselves in the country, don't bother others, and don't campaign for us all to adopt their values.

[cybercoma]

Didn't say it was a crime, just an indication of how hostile they are to our value system.

It must be difficult for you to bear the winters here in Canada with all those people covering their faces, showing how hostile they are to your value system.