France denies citizenship to Moroccan man who forces wife to wear full veil

[The_Dude 1,142]

So what? That's irrelevant to this case, despite the use of it within the article. The wife is a French citizen. She has the right to practice any religion she so chooses and to take on all the practices and customs therein so long as they do not conflict with any laws that are in place (wearing niqab in some public places being one of these laws). The fact is that the case rests on whether or not she was being 'forced' to practice customs and practices against her will or not, not whether or not she can or can't wear niqab if she wants to.

It's not irrelevant. This is a hand picked test case for that ban. I really can't tell which side is doing the instigating though.

[Peikko 1,575]

It's not irrelevant. This is a hand picked test case for that ban. I really can't tell which side is doing the instigating though.

It really isn't, the main case in the OP revolves around the husband co-ercing the wife into practices and customs that fly in the face of the normal customs and freedoms derived from French citizenship, not whether she can or can't wear one. The other case probably isn't either, the woman's 'radical interpretation of Islam' likely had much more to do with her denial than the fact that she wore the niqab. What is not being said, is how many women are going about their business wearing the niqab but not causing any harm to anyone because they are not 'radical' in any way.

[Peikko 1,575]

I'd be interested to know how the wife is reacting to this denial - a quick visit to an attorney to get out of the marriage is my guess.

[The_Dude 1,142]

It really isn't, the main case in the OP revolves around the husband co-ercing the wife into practices and customs that fly in the face of the normal customs and freedoms derived from French citizenship, not whether she can or can't wear one. The other case probably isn't either, the woman's 'radical interpretation of Islam' likely had much more to do with her denial than the fact that she wore the niqab. What is not being said, is how many women are going about their business wearing the niqab but not causing any harm to anyone because they are not 'radical' in any way.

Sorry, i'm looking a bit beyond the literal interpretation of the article. But you dont' seem to want to indulge anything beyond the OP, so i'll drop it.

[Darnell 8,480]

I'd be interested to know how the wife is reacting to this denial - a quick visit to an attorney to get out of the marriage is my guess.

I'd be interested to know if the 'man' was going to add in a second wife.

I dunno - maybe it's time for the whole family to move to Malaysia?

[Peikko 1,575]

Sorry, i'm looking a bit beyond the literal interpretation of the article. But you dont' seem to want to indulge anything beyond the OP, so i'll drop it.

You are making assumptions that have no basis in the few facts that we have at our disposal - that's the problem I have. However, I would be interested in the wife's reaction to this. Wouldn't you?

[The_Dude 1,142]

"The lifestyle he has chosen may be justified by religious precepts but is incompatible with the values of the Republic, notably the principle of equality of the sexes."

That is what stuck out to me most in this, and what led me to start thinking that this was going to be a test case.

You are making assumptions that have no basis in the few facts that we have at our disposal - that's the problem I have. However, I would be interested in the wife's reaction to this. Wouldn't you?

When I read this and another article about it, my initial reaction was that this was a pre-text for a case against banning the head-coverings. I don't think because it's not literally in the OP that it's beyond the scope of discussion. But in the end, i suppose i'll just be talking to myself.

I guess the wife's reaction will depend upon whether or not she feels she is being repressed or not I suppose.

[Peikko 1,575]

That is what stuck out to me most in this, and what led me to start thinking that this was going to be a test case.

When I read this and another article about it, my initial reaction was that this was a pre-text for a case against banning the head-coverings. I don't think because it's not literally in the OP that it's beyond the scope of discussion. But in the end, i suppose i'll just be talking to myself.

I guess the wife's reaction will depend upon whether or not she feels she is being repressed or not I suppose.

How could this be a test case against banning head coverings?

The bolded is key. I can't see how the authorities can justify the refusal to grant citizenship unless the wife feels repressed. If she did not express any feelings of coercion, they have no case because she would simply be undertaking customs and practices that she believed in as she, the French citizen, has the right to practice any religion that she chooses. That's really my whole point. That's why knowing how she really feels about this decision is the crux of the matter, and we don't have access to that information - at least I don't. The only thing we know is that we are told she was 'forced' to do certain things by her husband.

Edited February 3, 2010 by Madame Cleo

[The_Dude 1,142]

According to Le Figaro, which obtained a copy of the ruling handed down by the council of state, France's highest legal body, the man behaved towards women in a way which made him "incompatible" with the values of France.

"Monsieur X displays in an everyday manner a discriminatory attitude towards women, going as far as refusing to shake their hands and advocating the separation of boys and girls including, at home, of brothers and sisters," the ruling read.

This is not the first time France has cited the niqab – a veil that leaves only the wearer's eyes showing – as grounds for the refusal of citizenship. In 2008, a Moroccan woman, Faiza Silmi, was told she could not become French because her veil and "radical" interpretation of Islam were obstacles to assimilation.

How could this be a test case against banning head coverings?

The bolded is key. I can't see how the authorities can justify the refusal to grant citizenship unless the wife feels repressed. If she did not express any feelings of coercion, they have no case because she would simply be undertaking customs and practices that she believed in as she, the French citizen, has the right to practice any religion that she chooses. That's really my whole point. That's why knowing how she really feels about this decision is the crux of the matter, and we don't have access to that information - at least I don't. The only thing we know is that we are told she was 'forced' to do certain things by her husband.

If the head coverings were not banned, then how would requiring your wife to wear one be a rationale for denying his citizenship? Can you really deny someone for their beliefs?

[Peikko 1,575]

If the head coverings were not banned, then how would requiring your wife to wear one be a rationale for denying his citizenship? Can you really deny someone for their beliefs?

I will try to be clear. The act of 'requiring' is the root of the matter, not the specifics of what is being required.

What I mean by that is that should she believe, as a French citizen, that it is right and proper that she should wear something to cover herself from head to foot, subject to French laws in place (regarding the public wearing of such garments) she can please herself and wear whatever she likes. However, if she is required by her husband to wear such clothing, but she doesn't want to, then she is being coerced into a religious practice and custom. It is that which is contrary to her human rights and freedoms that are bestowed on her simply by being a French citizen, not specifically what she should or shouldn't wear.

Edited February 3, 2010 by Madame Cleo

[Peikko 1,575]

What I mean by that is that should she believe, as a French citizen, that it is right and proper that she should wear something to cover herself from head to foot, subject to French laws in place (regarding the public wearing of such garments) because of her own religious beliefs then she can please herself and wear whatever she likes. However, if she is required by her husband to wear such clothing, but she doesn't want to, then she is being coerced into a religious practice and custom. It is that which is contrary to her human rights and freedoms that are bestowed on her simply by being a French citizen, not specifically what she should or shouldn't wear.

Wanted to add the bolded. wouldn't let me.

[Peikko 1,575]

Actually, I am not sure that it even matters whether or not the coercion is related to a religious belief it just has to contradict a right derived from French citizenship. A husband can't demand a wife does anything that contradicts human rights, although she can do so if she wants to, presumably

[The_Dude 1,142]

Actually, I am not sure that it even matters whether or not the coercion is related to a religious belief it just has to contradict a right derived from French citizenship. A husband can't demand a wife does anything that contradicts human rights, although she can do so if she wants to, presumably

If it were not coersion, and her choice, and the man were still denied citizenship, would you take umbrage with it?

[Peikko 1,575]

If it were not coersion, and her choice, and the man were still denied citizenship, would you take umbrage with it?

Indeed I would.

[Peikko 1,575]

France can't demand that its citizens take advantage of all their rights. What it can do is protect them if their rights are infringed.