NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,380802,00.html

So they're trying to force her to compromise her beliefs because they demand that she be more equal to a man...

Do what we're telling you to do and stop submitting!

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,380802,00.html

So they're trying to force her to compromise her beliefs because they demand that she be more equal to a man...

Do what we're telling you to do and stop submitting!

They're not trying to force her to do something; they're deeming her unsuitable for French citizenship.

that will learn her for dressing how she wants!

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,380802,00.html

So they're trying to force her to compromise her beliefs because they demand that she be more equal to a man...

Do what we're telling you to do and stop submitting!
I see nothing wrong with this.

This woman wants to act uncivilized and seclude herself off from the community she was hoping to legally enter.

It should not be suprising that people aren't leaping at the prospect of letting uncivilized, self-secluding backwards people into their community.

Hopefully, it's the begining of a trend...

That'll teach those evil m0sl3ms a lesson. :rolleyes:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,380802,00.html

So they're trying to force her to compromise her beliefs because they demand that she be more equal to a man...

Do what we're telling you to do and stop submitting!

Terrible isn't it? How dare the French ignore the primitive traditions of this woman's rabid religion. If these people had the sensitivity of the Anglophone world they would respect her "culture" and go and bomb her country instead.

It should not be suprising that people aren't leaping at the prospect of letting uncivilized, self-secluding backwards people into their community.

but your talking about France here thats like every immigrant ever (yes someone had to do it)

Terrible isn't it? How dare the French ignore the primitive traditions of this woman's rabid religion. If these people had the sensitivity of the Anglophone world they would respect her "culture" and go and bomb her country instead.

I too miss the bickering with France

Indeed she iz not French.

C'est la laïcité and all that.

It should be pointed out that the French authorities are not forcing her to do anything, nor are the they threatening to sling her out of the country. They are refusing to give her citizenship as she has not met their criteria of cultural assimilation.

It's not a cut and dry case IMHO. Her cultural and religious views shouldn't come into it, but if (as the report claims) she has no idea of how the government functions, or of her responcibilities as a potential citizen, that is an issue. Personally, I think the authorities should request that she study the basics of the French governmental system and how citizens are involved in it, then apply again, once she has understood these matters. Her religion and culture, however, should be irrelevent.

It should not be suprising that people aren't leaping at the prospect of letting uncivilized, self-secluding backwards people into their community.

And she would probably think the same about your culture, if she met you.

It should be pointed out that the French authorities are not forcing her to do anything, nor are the they threatening to sling her out of the country. They are refusing to give her citizenship as she has not met their criteria of cultural assimilation.

It's not a cut and dry case IMHO. Her cultural and religious views shouldn't come into it, but if (as the report claims) she has no idea of how the government functions, or of her responcibilities as a potential citizen, that is an issue. Personally, I think the authorities should request that she study the basics of the French governmental system and how citizens are involved in it, then apply again, once she has understood these matters. Her religion and culture, however, should be irrelevent.
Culture and religion should come into this if it alienates her from society. Why would France want to let her in if she does not wish to become French and function as a member of the French society?


And she would probably think the same about your culture, if she met you.
Oh, well then. I'll keep that in mind if I ever feel the urge to discard my religious, political, social and economic freedom, education and first world living standard in exchange for Moroccan citizenship.....:)

Culture and religion should come into this if it alienates her from society. Why would France want to let her in if she does not wish to become French and function as a member of the French society?

She is already in France, had you cared to read the article in full on Reuters. The issue is over whether or not to grant her citizenship, i.e. the rights and responsibilities of being a French citizen, rather than simply living in France, which she is already doing.

Oh, well then. I'll keep that in mind if I ever feel the urge to discard my religious, political, social and economic freedom, education and first world living standard in exchange for Moroccan citizenship.....:)

...Or to deride other people culture because doesn't match up to your own prejudices? I assume you are aware of the norms of mainstream Moroccan culture, before you mock it?

She is already in France, had you cared to read the article in full on Reuters. The issue is over whether or not to grant her citizenship, i.e. the rights and responsibilities of being a French citizen, rather than simply living in France, which she is already doing.
I know exactly what I said and I said exactly what I meant. Everything I do is perfectly planned out in advance.

The issue is that she has not assimilated and shows no desire to joing the French community, choosing instead to adopt a radical interpretatin of her religion which is against the culture that the European enlightenment has given France.

By French community I meant it in a legal and finalized term, being what citizenship brings one.

However, if it were up to me, she would only have been allowed in the country if she showed she was willing to assimilate, totally, culturally.


...Or to deride other people culture because doesn't match up to your own prejudices? I assume you are aware of the norms of mainstream Moroccan culture, before you mock it?
Should I choose to, I may critique other cultures as much as I like because, unlike race, you choose to believe the way you believe and live the way you live.

It must be stated for all to see and hear: Not all cultures are created equal. Thus, the criticism is valid and legit.

Maybe I should go into the immigration bureaucracy business. Must be such a rush: "I've got a little sign on my desk that means I'm so much better than you that I can decide how and where you live your life and enforce that decision with potentially lethal violence."

I have the feeling people who actually want to be saying this are underequipped below the belt.

That's unfortunate. Assimilation annoys me, yes it's necessary to an extent but to the extent that the immigrant is willing to follow laws. Her attire should not come into play.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,380802,00.html

So they're trying to force her to compromise her beliefs because they demand that she be more equal to a man...

Do what we're telling you to do and stop submitting!
Good for the French. Maybe there is hope that Europe will not become another Muslim continent.

Good for the French. Maybe there is hope that Europe will not become another Muslim continent.

Another Muslim continent? There's a Muslim continent out there right now?

She was first denied in her application for citizenship in 2005 for reasons of "insufficient assimilation."
Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.

Yeah,yeah, I know I'm not being serious. But hey, what's life if you're serious all the time?

I see nothing wrong with this.

This woman wants to act uncivilized and seclude herself off from the community she was hoping to legally enter.

It should not be suprising that people aren't leaping at the prospect of letting uncivilized, self-secluding backwards people into their community.

Hopefully, it's the begining of a trend...

Translation: Women must dress the way I demand, or else!

You don't sound all that civilized either.

I don't have a problem with this. Aside from anything else, the Burqa has nothing to do with Islam. It's an Arab custom, and would in fact show 'insufficient assimilation'.

Ridiculous. I thought Europe is supposed to be an enlightened place that accepts other cultures? If she doesn't know the government or how it works, fine. But she can dress any way she damn well pleases, and it should have no bearing on her eligibility for citizenship.
(Not trying to generalize, but this bothers me :()




I have the feeling people who actually want to be saying this are underequipped below the belt.

:p

That's unfortunate. Assimilation annoys me, yes it's necessary to an extent but to the extent that the immigrant is willing to follow laws. Her attire should not come into play.

The veil is a symbol of her beliefs which are, according to authorities, not "French" enough. Similar to how authorities would be upset about a T-shirt covered in racial slurs: they both represent something undesirable. The difference between them would be how exactly you define what is undesirable to your culture. The French, apparently, have defined radical muslim veils to be undesirable.

Translation: Women must dress the way I demand, or else!

You don't sound all that civilized either.
Translation: One must show a desire and will to assimilate if one would like to join my community. This means knowing how the community works and integrating yourself within our community.

Lack of knowledge of how our community works or dressing in a way that will prevent you from assimilating and integrating is not what we desire when looking at potential new additions to our community.

Another Muslim continent? There's a Muslim continent out there right now?
Maybe the wrong word. Certainly Southwest Asia, the Middle East, or what have you is a large conglomeration of predominantly Muslim nations. I'd hate see Europe pulled back into the middle ages, as well.

It should be pointed out that the French authorities are not forcing her to do anything, nor are the they threatening to sling her out of the country. They are refusing to give her citizenship as she has not met their criteria of cultural assimilation.

I will say this for the French: At least they admit that it is assimilation they want, instead of calling it integration.

We are the French. You will be assimilated!

Translation: One must show a desire and will to assimilate if one would like to join my community. This means knowing how the community works and integrating yourself within our community.

Lack of knowledge of how our community works or dressing in a way that will prevent you from assimilating and integrating is not what we desire when looking at potential new additions to our community.

Considering what passes for fashion these days, arguing that the manner of dress shows a lack of willingness to integrate is a load of bollocks at best.

However, if it were up to me, she would only have been allowed in the country if she showed she was willing to assimilate, totally, culturally.

Absolutely. Individuality is for chumps. Either become just like everyone else or stay the hell home, that's what I say.

I don't have a problem with this. Aside from anything else, the Burqa has nothing to do with Islam. It's an Arab custom, and would in fact show 'insufficient assimilation'.

Indeed. Just like a sari. I don't know where those damn Indians think they get off dressing as they please. If they won't dress white, they shouldn't leave India.

Absolutely. Individuality is for chumps. Either become just like everyone else or stay the hell home, that's what I say.

Indeed. Just like a sari. I don't know where those damn Indians think they get off dressing as they please. If they won't dress white, they shouldn't leave India.

There's a difference between individuality and complete lack of integration with a community. As a nation, France has every right to define what is "French". The bottom line is, if you don't want to be "French", A) Why are you trying to get citizenship from France, and B) Why should France give you citizenship since you don't want to be "French".

There's a difference between individuality and complete lack of integration with a community. As a nation, France has every right to define what is "French". The bottom line is, if you don't want to be "French", A) Why are you trying to get citizenship from France, and B) Why should France give you citizenship since you don't want to be "French".

If you don't want to be French, why are you applying for citizenship? She WANTS to be French!

Maybe the wrong word. Certainly Southwest Asia, the Middle East, or what have you is a large conglomeration of predominantly Muslim nations. I'd hate see Europe pulled back into the middle ages, as well.

Subcontinent would be the more precise term, then.

Still, I think it's a little funny that you're worried they'd be pulled back to the Middle Ages, a time when Europe had brought war to the Middle East over religious and cultural tension. In light of the continuing war in Iraq and Afghanistan, it seems we're halfway there already.

If you don't want to be French, why are you applying for citizenship? She WANTS to be French!
Perhaps it's not that she wants to be French, but as the article shows that she has a family she has made for herself in France, it's to be with her family?

If you don't want to be French, why are you applying for citizenship? She WANTS to be French!

No, she wants to live in France and receive the benefits of French citizenship, but none of that necessarily makes her French. Being French, according to the French government - which is an extension of the French citizens - feel that being French culturally (as opposed to legally) does not include wearing radical Muslim veils and being completely submissive to one's husband.

Perhaps it's not that she wants to be French, but as the article shows that she has a family she has made for herself in France, it's to be with her family?

She's already with her family, no?
According to Reuters, the woman has three children with her French husband and has been living in the country for the last eight years.
She's with her family, she WANTS to be French! Has it ever occurred to you that maybe the government is being discriminatory in this case?

No, she wants to live in France and receive the benefits of French citizenship, but none of that necessarily makes her French. Being French, according to the French government - which is an extension of the French citizens - feel that being French culturally (as opposed to legally) does not include wearing radical Muslim veils and being completely submissive to one's husband.

So, the Frech government has the right to discriminate against someone's religion? *Reminds self not to go to France*

So, the Frech government has the right to discriminate against someone's religion? *Reminds self not to go to France*

They're not doing anything to hurt her except not legally defining her as French. She can still call herself French, live in France, etc. She's just not legally French. I don't see how it's hurting her, even if it's not particularly helping her.

And you have every right not to go there.

They're not doing anything to hurt her except not legally defining her as French. She can still call herself French, live in France, etc. She's just not legally French. I don't see how it's hurting her, even if it's not particularly helping her.

And you have every right not to go there.
They're refusing her citizenship on the basis of religion. That's discriminatory. heck, they ADMIT it!
"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,"

They're refusing her citizenship on the basis of religion. That's discriminatory. heck, they ADMIT it!

Yes, it is discriminatory. It's also within their rights. It's their country. She's the one trying to become French; France isn't coming to her in her country and demanding that she be French. She said "I want to be French" and France said "This is what being French means." She said "I don't like that" and France said "Then you can't be French, because this is what French means."

Now, if France was invading and demanding that she change or else leave, then it would be different. Or if she was already a French citizen and France was demanding she change or leave, it would be different. But she's not a citizen and it's not her country.

Yes, it is discriminatory. It's also within their rights. It's their country. She's the one trying to become French; France isn't coming to her in her country and demanding that she be French. She said "I want to be French" and France said "This is what being French means." She said "I don't like that" and France said "Then you can't be French, because this is what French means."

Now, if France was invading and demanding that she change or else leave, then it would be different. Or if she was already a French citizen and France was demanding she change or leave, it would be different. But she's not a citizen and it's not her country.
Then they have to edit their motto. I never said that they couldn't do it, I'm just saying it's disgusting and completely shatters any thought of France being "Free".

Then they have to edit their motto. I never said that they couldn't do it, I'm just saying it's disgusting and completely shatters any thought of France being "Free".

I think the whole point is that France doesn't see her as representing the values of freedom. It's supposed to be a free country, but she's living in complete submission to her husband (or so the report says). France is saying that she does not represent freedom, so she until she does, she won't be considered French by the government.

Which is why I posted the story: it's hilariously ironic. France is trying to tell her how to be free.

I think the whole point is that France doesn't see her as representing the values of freedom. It's supposed to be a free country, but she's living in complete submission to her husband (or so the report says). France is saying that she does not represent freedom, so she until she does, she won't be considered French by the government.

Which is why I posted the story: it's hilariously ironic. France is trying to tell her how to be free.
So, why are you disagreeing?

So, why are you disagreeing?

I don't recall saying I was.

But you seem to say it's a bad thing. I just think it is. I don't particularly think it's good or bad, just ironic.


So I suppose I disagree that it's bad, if indeed that's what you were implying.

I don't recall saying I was.

But you seem to say it's a bad thing. I just think it is. I don't particularly think it's good or bad, just ironic.


So I suppose I disagree that it's bad, if indeed that's what you were implying.

Well, I think discrimination is bad, so yeah, I say it's bad.

Well, I think discrimination is bad, so yeah, I say it's bad.

I think discrimination is a part of living. The root of "discriminate" means making a distinction between things. France is making a distinction between what is and is not French. France is saying she can practice her religion; they're even saying she can practice her religion in France. But they are also saying that her religion is not French.

The difference between this and, say, discrimination in America in the 60s is that blacks were already American citizens and had lived in America their whole lives, so they had every right to say that they represented America, and in any case they didn't have a choice about being in America. But this woman has not lived in France her entire life (or at least, that's the impression I'm getting), and she's not a French citizen, so she while she has every right to say she represents France, France has every right to disagree, as she is in France as a voluntary immigrant.

I think discrimination is a part of living. The root of "discriminate" means making a distinction between things. France is making a distinction between what is and is not French. France is saying she can practice her religion; they're even saying she can practice her religion in France. But they are also saying that her religion is not French.

The difference between this and, say, discrimination in America in the 60s is that blacks were already American citizens and had lived in America their whole lives, so they had every right to say that they represented America, and in any case they didn't have a choice about being in America. But this woman has not lived in France her entire life (or at least, that's the impression I'm getting), and she's not a French citizen, so she while she has every right to say she represents France, France has every right to disagree, as she is in France as a voluntary immigrant.
I'm using the common usage, not dictionary definition. So, you think it's fine and dandy for France to refuse a women citizenship because of her religious beliefs?

I'm using the common usage, not dictionary definition. So, you think it's fine and dandy for France to refuse a women citizenship because of her religious beliefs?

Since they're not kicking her out, forcing her to stay, or demanding she change her religion, no. She's there voluntarily, and no one is making her change.

Since they're not kicking her out, forcing her to stay, or demanding she change her religion, no. She's there voluntarily, and no one is making her change.
They're denying her citizenship based on religion.

There's a difference between individuality and complete lack of integration with a community.

And there is a difference between integration and assimilation.

As a nation, France has every right to define what is "French".

Indeed. And when they do it in a bigoted and stupid manner, I have every right to make fun of them for it.

The bottom line is, if you don't want to be "French", A) Why are you trying to get citizenship from France, and B) Why should France give you citizenship since you don't want to be "French".

Maybe she was under the mistaken impression that a supposedly progressive Western country would value religious freedom and the ability of individuals to make their own choices on things like how to dress.

Too bad she was wrong, eh?

No, she wants to live in France and receive the benefits of French citizenship, but none of that necessarily makes her French. Being French, according to the French government - which is an extension of the French citizens - feel that being French culturally (as opposed to legally) does not include wearing radical Muslim veils and being completely submissive to one's husband.

Indeed. Apparently, being French means that you have to agree with the majority of people living in France on how to live your life, even if you aren't harming anyone.

You know, you're right. I can't imagine why this woman would want to be French. I can't imagine, in fact, why anyone would, if that's what it takes.

I think the whole point is that France doesn't see her as representing the values of freedom.

Yes, because "freedom" means "you can't make certain choices because we don't like them."

Is French the opposite of English?

It's supposed to be a free country, but she's living in complete submission to her husband (or so the report says).

...which is her choice.

Which is why I posted the story: it's hilariously ironic. France is trying to tell her how to be free.

Indeed.

You know, you're right. I can't imagine why this woman would want to be French. I can't imagine, in fact, why anyone would, if that's what it takes.

That's pretty much the point I was trying to make.

To be fair, try to see it from the French gov't's perspective: We all see that it's her choice. But the gov't is envisioning a tourist or something seeing her full in her veil and thinking "Wow, I would think that a progressive Western country would value religious freedom and the ability of individuals to make their own choices on things like how to dress. I mean, look at her, she can't even show her face!" Mistaken thinking, sure, but I think that's what France is afraid of.

And also to be fair, it may not be her choice. If she's as ignorant as the full article suggests, then she's not practicing religious freedom, she's just ignorant of any other choice, in which case I can understand France's reluctance to grant citizenship. They're protecting their sense of freedom by ensuring that their citizens really are as free as a French citizen should be. Hypothetically.

So, the Frech government has the right to discriminate against someone's religion? *Reminds self not to go to France*
Did you read the whole article or just the fox news snippit?

If you read the whole article, did you happen to miss the part where someone who examined her life found her to be a recluse who has no idea how French society works? Citizenship shouldn't just be given out because it was requested, you should have to know how the society you're living in functions... I mean, she didn't even know she had the right to vote.

I see nothing wrong with this.

This woman wants to act uncivilized and seclude herself off from the community she was hoping to legally enter.

It should not be suprising that people aren't leaping at the prospect of letting uncivilized, self-secluding backwards people into their community.

Hopefully, it's the begining of a trend...

While you're taking it in exactly the wrong direction, I agree with you, albeit it on totally different principles.

While I believe this is a 'backwards' way of leading life, I would never even dream of telling anyone to lead it differently. The epitome of civil freedom is allowing a person to live the way they desire no matter how different it is (within reason of course, so please don't spin that argument to make it seem as though I'm arguing in favour of blatantly taboo practices). However! I can understand where the French government is coming from in making their refusal. They believe that a person should be completely assimilated into their society and their culture before being granted citizenship, and this includes the French belief that women should be equal to men in all aspects of a relationship, and those who interperet the Qu'ran to force women to be submissive to men do not meet those requirements. While a part of me says thats a breach of civil liberty, another part of me also acknowledges why they're doing it, which is in some respects, one could argue, for her benefit should she choose to accept it.

*shrug* Just my take on the matter.

Not all muslims are terrorist. But most of them are and all it takes is most of them. She could be hiding something under that veil like a suitcase nuke and you're never know until it went off.

I will accord the French the courtesy they so often deny Americans - "their country, their laws."

If she doesn't want to assimilate in to French culture and move away from what really is a repressive, aggressive, and destructive culture she has no business becoming a citizen of that country. I wouldn't expect any nation to give me such leeway, and I would not extend such courtesy to anyone wishing to become a US citizen. The truth is, she was utterly ignorant about France and its institutions...under no circumstances would I ever give citizenship to someone so blatantly ignorant about the country to which they plan to immigrate. Citizenship is not just the ability to live and work in a country...you can get temporary permits for that. Citizenship requires knowledge of the country's laws, values and culture and a willingness to contribute to and adopt them and make them part of yourself.

Unwillingness to assimilate and a lack of knowledge about the country are nothing more than a recipe for disaster. Given the problems in Muslim communities, I see no reason to encourage further immigration by ignorant religious fanatics...it certainly helps neither the existing citizens nor the Muslim communities seeking to distinguish themselves from their barbaric and backward fringe that unfortunately tarnishes the religion's reputation around the world.

I know exactly what I said and I said exactly what I meant. Everything I do is perfectly planned out in advance.

Then you knowingly ignored what was said in the article. Sweet.

The issue is that she has not assimilated and shows no desire to join the French community, choosing instead to adopt a radical interpretation of her religion which is against the culture that the European enlightenment has given France.

By French community I meant it in a legal and finalized term, being what citizenship brings one.

However, if it were up to me, she would only have been allowed in the country if she showed she was willing to assimilate, totally, culturally.

So there is no room for any variation at all in your society? Scary place... I favour the idea of people accepting a standard set of cultural tenents of their country, but I'd draw that line at them having to actively follow them all to the letter. I accept the cultural tenents of my country, even though I personally differ over them (religion, political process, role of the Lords etc.), does that mean I am unfit to be a citizen of the United Kingdom? Should I be slung out? And if so, where to?

Should I choose to, I may critique other cultures as much as I like because, unlike race, you choose to believe the way you believe and live the way you live.

I didn't say you couldn't. I merely asked if you have any knowledge of the culture you are talking about with such a passionate hatred.

It must be stated for all to see and hear: Not all cultures are created equal. Thus, the criticism is valid and legit.

Especially the cultures of the ebil m0zlemz, and teh darkiez!

I don't have a problem with this. Aside from anything else, the Burqa has nothing to do with Islam. It's an Arab custom, and would in fact show 'insufficient assimilation'.

Article is incorrect. Burqas are a particular item of clothing worn by some tribes in South West Asia. There is not such a style in Morocco. I am assuming they mean a Jilbab and Niqab. Burqa is not an Arab tradition, most Moroccans are not Arabs.

Maybe the wrong word. Certainly Southwest Asia, the Middle East, or what have you is a large conglomeration of predominantly Muslim nations. I'd hate see Europe pulled back into the middle ages, as well.

Yes, because the handful of (mostly poor) Muslims in Europe could easily overthrow our continent and turn it into a new caliphate. We should be vigilant against this. Oh, please.

Considering what passes for fashion these days, arguing that the manner of dress shows a lack of willingness to integrate is a load of bollocks at best.

Totally agree.

Perhaps it's not that she wants to be French, but as the article shows that she has a family she has made for herself in France, it's to be with her family?

She is already with her family. But citizen would be a cast iron guarantee that they won't be split up. Of course that's a part of it, she'd be inhuman not to want that.

No, she wants to live in France and receive the benefits of French citizenship, but none of that necessarily makes her French. Being French, according to the French government - which is an extension of the French citizens - feel that being French culturally (as opposed to legally) does not include wearing radical Muslim veils and being completely submissive to one's husband.

Citizenship is a legal set of rights and responsibilities by both state and citizen. There is no cultural dimension to it. I'd argue that an understanding of those right and responsibilities (which she current lacks) is an important part of being granted citizenship. I'd also aruge that you could be expected to "toe the line" in that you pledge not to oppose the nations values (ie, do not fight against the system). What you wear, and the nature of your relationship with your husband, however, is not a part of that. That is private

They're not doing anything to hurt her except not legally defining her as French. She can still call herself French, live in France, etc. She's just not legally French. I don't see how it's hurting her, even if it's not particularly helping her.

And you have every right not to go there.

This I agree with.

Not all Muslims are terrorist. But most of them are and all it takes is most of them. She could be hiding something under that veil like a suitcase nuke and you're never know until it went off.

WTF? :rolleyes:

If she doesn't want to assimilate in to French culture and move away from what really is a repressive, aggressive, and destructive culture she has no business becoming a citizen of that country.

What about her culture is inherently "destructive" or "aggressive" any more or less so than any other culture? The report mentions no such acts.

[/quote]...under no circumstances would I ever give citizenship to someone so blatantly ignorant about the country to which they plan to immigrate[/quote]

This proving you have read nothing about this case...

Citizenship is a legal set of rights and responsibilities by both state and citizen. There is no cultural dimension to it. I'd argue that an understanding of those right and responsibilities (which she current lacks) is an important part of being granted citizenship. I'd also argue that you could be expected to "toe the line" in that you pledge not to oppose the nations values (i.e., do not fight against the system). What you wear, and the nature of your relationship with your husband, however, is not a part of that. That is private.

You make it sound as if there's only one definition of and set of requirements for citizenship, which is manifestly not true. Different states have set and continue to set different requirements for becoming a citizen, and many states have included cultural requirements. Whether those requirements conform to universal principles like freedom, equality, et al. is certainly a debatable issue, but the democratically-elected French government has defined what its requirements are, and they are different from the UK's, the USA's, or any number of other states.

As a side point, if the woman in question truly had "no idea about the secular state or the right to vote," as the government's legal expert stated, then she would fail the US citizenship test were she to apply. It's not uncommon for states to require a basic level of familiarity with the system of government. One difference between the French and US requirements is that apparently the French require that you agree with their principles to some extent, whereas in the USA you only have to demonstrate understanding of them.

Article is incorrect. Burqas are a particular item of clothing worn by some tribes in South West Asia. There is not such a style in Morocco. I am assuming they mean a Jilbab and Niqab. Burqa is not an Arab tradition, most Moroccans are not Arabs.


Fair enough; I don't know the names of the various pieces of clothing. But the total veiling of women remains a cultural artifact, having nothing to do with Islam.

Fair enough; I don't know the names of the various pieces of clothing. But the total veiling of women remains a cultural artifact, having nothing to do with Islam.

A pity nobody could actually drive this point home when Michelle Malkin bitched and howled about the Dunkin Donuts commercial with Rachel Ray sporting a keffiyeh.

"0MG!! Sh3 1z w3hring 3b1l m0zl3m 73rr0r1zt h3dg33r!!"

The French are notorious for not wanting any foreign culture in their country, nor foreign words in their language. The phrase "le weekend" apparently caused quite a bit of controversy, because as a borrowed word from English, it is clearly inferior to the longer "le fin de semaine".

They are treating this lady neither better nor worse than anyone else else whom they require to assimilate into French society.

You may not like it, but there it is.

Did you read the whole article or just the fox news snippit?

If you read the whole article, did you happen to miss the part where someone who examined her life found her to be a recluse who has no idea how French society works? Citizenship shouldn't just be given out because it was requested, you should have to know how the society you're living in functions... I mean, she didn't even know she had the right to vote.

Dakini! What are you thinking, confusing the issue with FACTS when EMOTION is so much better?!

I see nothing wrong with this.

...

Quelle suprise.

Europe is being overrun, literally, by these people. If the French don't want to have this, I'm perfectly happy with it. The other thing is, if they'd ban an Italian for spaghetti, a German for sauerkraut, and whatnot, it's their thing really. It's their nation, and as long as they can enforce their laws, they are obviously the sovereign power in that nation. So, they have every justification to decide who should come into their nation and who not.

/

Oh, one more thing btw: Please take a look at the flag of the nation "Jihadist states" (or something along that line) to see what we would be facing without those proud frenchmen, standing in Europe's defense from Tours and Poitiers until today...

Dakini! What are you thinking, confusing the issue with FACTS when EMOTION is so much better?!
Yeah, what was I thinking... not that anyone else let facts get in the way of some good old French bashing and racism. :P

Yeah, what was I thinking... not that anyone else let facts get in the way of some good old French bashing and racism. :P

The problem is that those facts weren't all there was to it. They didn't say, "This woman doesn't know how our government works so we'll deny her citizenship."

Instead, they said, "This woman has values that aren't French enough! She dresses and lives in a way we don't like! Oh yeah, and she didn't even know how our government works."

If they'd left out the bitching about her lifestyle choices and stuck with the more relevant issues, no one would have an issue with it.

The problem is that those facts weren't all there was to it. They didn't say, "This woman doesn't know how our government works so we'll deny her citizenship."

Instead, they said, "This woman has values that aren't French enough! She dresses and lives in a way we don't like! Oh yeah, and she didn't even know how our government works."

If they'd left out the bitching about her lifestyle choices and stuck with the more relevant issues, no one would have an issue with it.

Once again, it's up to France to decide what is or is not French enough for citizenship. As long as they're not harming her, they can be as racist and xenophobic as they choose to be. They're certainly not harming her, so I don't understand what you're upset about. If you don't like it, don't live in France. Problem solved.

Once again, it's up to France to decide what is or is not French enough for citizenship. As long as they're not harming her, they can be as racist and xenophobic as they choose to be. They're certainly not harming her, so I don't understand what you're upset about. If you don't like it, don't live in France. Problem solved.

It really depends on how you view harm. I think this sort of discrimination is harmful.

And I also think it's bullshit for a government to pretend to value freedom when they clearly do no such thing.

And, for this woman, "Don't live in France" is a bit easier said than done.

That said, France does get to decide how they determine citizenship, even if it is done in a xenophobic manner. And I get to bitch about how xenophobic they are. See how that works?

It really depends on how you view harm. I think this sort of discrimination is harmful.

How?

And I also think it's bullshit for a government to pretend to value freedom when they clearly do no such thing.

How are they hindering her freedom in any way?

For the record, citizenship is not a right that any country owes anyone. It is a privilege that they extend to those they choose according to the criteria that the country selects. Once again, France may be, and seems to be, denying her citizenship specifically because she does not represent the ideas of freedom that France sees in itself, and even if we know that she (supposedly: because the accounts seem to suggest she's completely ignorant of anything else) chooses to wear the veil, other people who visit France and see her may look and ask how France can claim to be open and free when its citizens are forced to where veils.

And, for this woman, "Don't live in France" is a bit easier said than done.

No one is making her leave, or stay. She is there voluntarily. That's my point. I never said it was easy. Nonetheless, it is her choice to stay and her choice to leave, and her choice to go to France in the first place.

That said, France does get to decide how they determine citizenship, even if it is done in a xenophobic manner. And I get to bitch about how xenophobic they are. See how that works?

Indeed. I don't understand why it's that upsetting, though.

The problem is that those facts weren't all there was to it. They didn't say, "This woman doesn't know how our government works so we'll deny her citizenship."

Instead, they said, "This woman has values that aren't French enough! She dresses and lives in a way we don't like! Oh yeah, and she didn't even know how our government works."

If they'd left out the bitching about her lifestyle choices and stuck with the more relevant issues, no one would have an issue with it.
Maybe it's an issue where the media likes to make a story out of something. Woman gets denied citizenship because she doesn't understand how french society works at all, which includes the fact that in France, it isn't normal or good for women to be utterly subservient to men and she didn't pick up on this during the time she's been there.

Mountains out of molehills.

How?

The same way all such discrimination is harmful - it unnecessarily gets in the way of people living their lives as they please.

How are they hindering her freedom in any way?

By tying citizenship, and therefore any control over the state that governs her, to giving up her way of life.

For the record, citizenship is not a right that any country owes anyone. It is a privilege that they extend to those they choose according to the criteria that the country selects.

That is the general line, yes. Personally, I think it's largely bullshit. I think everyone who is governed by a given state should have the opportunity to take part in it.

And I see no particular difference between denying someone citizenship on these counts and denying someone who is already a citizen rights on the same basis.

Once again, France may be, and seems to be, denying her citizenship specifically because she does not represent the ideas of freedom that France sees in itself, and even if we know that she (supposedly: because the accounts seem to suggest she's completely ignorant of anything else) chooses to wear the veil, other people who visit France and see her may look and ask how France can claim to be open and free when its citizens are forced to where veils.

Only if they were so fucking stupid that they shouldn't be allowed to walk around unchaperoned. Unless every woman they saw was wearing a veil, it'd be pretty hard to come to the conclusion that the government requires it.

No one is making her leave, or stay. She is there voluntarily. That's my point. I never said it was easy. Nonetheless, it is her choice to stay and her choice to leave, and her choice to go to France in the first place.

If someone is incredibly rich, this argument can be made.

Otherwise, just suddenly up and moving isn't exactly an option for most people.

Indeed. I don't understand why it's that upsetting, though.

If you don't have a problem with xenophobic governments, I suppose you wouldn't.


Maybe it's an issue where the media likes to make a story out of something. Woman gets denied citizenship because she doesn't understand how french society works at all, which includes the fact that in France, it isn't normal or good for women to be utterly subservient to men and she didn't pick up on this during the time she's been there.

Mountains out of molehills.

It's possible. But given France's history in this area and the fact that the document denying her citizenship was quoted, I doubt it.

If you don't have a problem with xenophobic governments, I suppose you wouldn't.


And from a country with a lot of xenos in it... I can't think of a greater way to isolate and piss off France's already inflamed immigrant community

Maybe it's an issue where the media likes to make a story out of something. Woman gets denied citizenship because she doesn't understand how french society works at all, which includes the fact that in France, it isn't normal or good for women to be utterly subservient to men and she didn't pick up on this during the time she's been there.

Mountains out of molehills.

It's only because her very story makes for Yet Another Sensationalist Headline About The Brown Peril. Otherwise this would have been at best, one of those tiny Human Interest stories near the end of BBC Radio.

The same way all such discrimination is harmful - it unnecessarily gets in the way of people living their lives as they please.
There are a lot of things that get in the way of people living their lives as they please. Several of these people would please to live their lives in ways that are harmful to others. Social contract and all that.

By tying citizenship, and therefore any control over the state that governs her, to giving up her way of life.

Her way of life is (apparently) incompatible with the state the governs her. What you are asking is no less than France giving up its way of life. If she has every right to her way of life, provided she doesn't force it upon anyone else, then France has every right to its way of life, given the same provision. She was not forced to immigrate to France, she is not forced to stay in France, and she is not forced to leave France, so clearly no one is forcing anything on her (except for perhaps her husband).

Why is her way of life any more valid than France's? France certainly has more of a right to practice its way of life in that location, since France has been there longer. Again, if France had come to her and demanded she change her lifestyle (although, again, France isn't demanding she change her lifestyle now), it would be different. But it didn't: she came to it, and France has every right to protect its way of life against change from her.

That is the general line, yes. Personally, I think it's largely bullshit. I think everyone who is governed by a given state should have the opportunity to take part in it.

I think that only those willing to contribute positively to the state should have the opportunity to take part in it.

And I see no particular difference between denying someone citizenship on these counts and denying someone who is already a citizen rights on the same basis.

A person who is already a citizen has demonstrated their ability to make a rational, informed choice about the way they want to live their life, or else were born and presumably raised in that nation, so the government knows that they are aware of and capable of coexisting within that culture.

This woman has demonstrated nothing but ignorance of French culture, and there is no guarantee that she is capable of coexisting with the French culture that already exists or contributing to it positively.

Only if they were so fucking stupid that they shouldn't be allowed to walk around unchaperoned.

And yet, somewhere in France, someone is reading this thread thinking, "Zat Demipublicents iz so fucking stupid zat he or she can't understand ze negative and damaging eempact zat zis woman could 'ave on our culture!" (For the record, I was using the same phrasing to make a point about irony and empathy, not to flame).

Unless every woman they saw was wearing a veil, it'd be pretty hard to come to the conclusion that the government requires it.

Not that the government requires it, but that the government allows such (perceived) subjugation of a woman to happen.

If someone is incredibly rich, this argument can be made.

Otherwise, just suddenly up and moving isn't exactly an option for most people.

She had enough money to suddenly up and move to France. I don't see how it could be that difficult to move back.

Though, once again, no one is making her do anything. They are simply denying a request made by her that is well within their rights to deny.

If you don't have a problem with xenophobic governments, I suppose you wouldn't.

Japan, parts of Russia, most of the Middle East, several countries in Africa, a couple places in South America...So what's new? France, at least, isn't bothering her.

There are a lot of things that get in the way of people living their lives as they please. Several of these people would please to live their lives in ways that are harmful to others. Social contract and all that.

Hence the qualifier "unnecessarily".

Her way of life is (apparently) incompatible with the state the governs her. What you are asking is no less than France giving up its way of life. If she has every right to her way of life, provided she doesn't force it upon anyone else, then France has every right to its way of life, given the same provision.

France is not a human being. Ergo, it does not have rights.

A government has authority granted to it - not rights.

Why is her way of life any more valid than France's?

"France" does not have a way of life. It is a government, not a person.

Individuals who live within the borders of France have ways of life - multiple different ones.

What France is doing here is declaring a specific way of life within its borders less valid.

I think that only those willing to contribute positively to the state should have the opportunity to take part in it.

Who defines "positively"?

A person who is already a citizen has demonstrated their ability to make a rational, informed choice about the way they want to live their life, or else were born and presumably raised in that nation, so the government knows that they are aware of and capable of coexisting within that culture.

If there is something wrong with making this lifestyle choice, it would have to be wrong whether already a citizen or not.

This woman lives there without problem. As such, she has clearly shown that she is capable of coexisting.

This woman has demonstrated nothing but ignorance of French culture, and there is no guarantee that she is capable of coexisting with the French culture that already exists or contributing to it positively.

It is clear that she is capable of coexisting. And assuming that she cannot contribute because she doesn't dress and run her relationships as most people do is silly.

The ignorance of the workings of the government is a problem - one that can be easily rectified with education.

And yet, somewhere in France, someone is reading this thread thinking, "Zat Demipublicents iz so fucking stupid zat he or she can't understand ze negative and damaging eempact zat zis woman could 'ave on our culture!" (For the record, I was using the same phrasing to make a point about irony and empathy, not to flame).

And that person is being bigoted. What's your point?

Especially given the fact that this has absolutely nothing to do with the comment it was in response to?

Not that the government requires it, but that the government allows such (perceived) subjugation of a woman to happen.

Ok, so someone else has a preconceived notion about a mode of dress, therefore France is supposed to discriminate on the basis that other people are stupid?

She had enough money to suddenly up and move to France. I don't see how it could be that difficult to move back.

You don't know anything at all about this woman's background or situation. You don't know why her family moved. You don't know if there is anything she could go back to (doubtful, if her family is in France).

But it's simpler just to assume she's super rich and can move back and forth between countries multiple times, right?

Because all immigrants have the funds to hop on a boat and go right back where they were and it isn't dangerous for any of them. Yup, that's reality alright.

Considering the general french love for counterculture, I bet that if she told them to take their citizenship and shove it up their fragrant french asses, they'd probably grant her citizenship. :)

Denying this woman the right to become a citizen based on the way she dresses or her decision to live subservient to men would require France to refuse citizenship to a range of people with alternative practices. I don't see them making enquiries of every female immigrant as to whether they are a part of the BDSM subculture or deciding that Goth immigrants with their dog collars and chains no longer qualify for French citizenship.

If however, their reason is her lack of knowledge and understanding of French culture and laws, then I fail to see the issue. She is not being denied the right to live in France, but has elected not to fulfil the responsibilities of a French citizen.

Hence the qualifier "unnecessarily".

I fail to see how it's unnecessary. The only thing they are stopping her from doing is legally calling herself French.

France is not a human being. Ergo, it does not have rights.

A government has authority granted to it - not rights.

France is a body of people with similar enough culture, language, and heritage that a government was created to exclusively govern that group of people and represent them to foreign governments, and that group of people certainly does have rights, one of which is to maintain their way of life, provided it is not harmful to others. You have yet to prove that it is harmful except that it is somehow intrinsically bad to deny someone citizenship because the culture they maintain is incompatible with France's, which I do not agree with.

"France" does not have a way of life. It is a government, not a person.

Individuals who live within the borders of France have ways of life - multiple different ones.

France body people yada blah see above.

What France is doing here is declaring a specific way of life within its borders less valid.

They are not declaring it less valid, they are declaring it not French. Since they're French, it's probably up to them to decide what is or is not French.

Who defines "positively"?

The French, since we're talking about France.

If there is something wrong with making this lifestyle choice, it would have to be wrong whether already a citizen or not.

Not necessarily. Certain lifestyles are better suited within certain cultures.

This woman lives there without problem. As such, she has clearly shown that she is capable of coexisting.

Then why is it a problem that France has asked her to continue coexisting as she has?

She has not demonstrated any understanding of France's culture. I would hope that you would understand the culture of the country you're trying to get citizenship in. In fact, she hasn't demonstrated an understanding of France's government, either.

It is clear that she is capable of coexisting. And assuming that she cannot contribute because she doesn't dress and run her relationships as most people do is silly.

I didn't say she couldn't contribute. I said she can contribute but currently it is such a way that is apparently counter to what the people - expressed through the French gov't - want for their country. This is proven because she doesn't particularly understand the culture she's trying to legally become a part of.

The ignorance of the workings of the government is a problem - one that can be easily rectified with education.

That's her responsibility, not France's.

And that person is being bigoted. What's your point?

You're being just as bigoted by neglecting to acknowledge the value and validity of French culture.

Ok, so someone else has a preconceived notion about a mode of dress, therefore France is supposed to discriminate on the basis that other people are stupid?

I am only trying to point out that there are several sides to this issue, and that the intentions of the French gov't in rejecting her citizenship may not be, and probably are not, racist or bigoted in intention. I am attempting to understand why the gov't did what it did, instead of assuming that I know more and better than they do.

You don't know anything at all about this woman's background or situation. You don't know why her family moved. You don't know if there is anything she could go back to (doubtful, if her family is in France).

Neither do you. Poof, your point is no longer valid.

But it's simpler just to assume she's super rich and can move back and forth between countries multiple times, right?

I never once made that assumption or indicated in any way that I wanted to. The point I was making has nothing to do with money: she is there by choice. Regardless of why, regardless of how, she went to France, not the other way around. If she doesn't like it, it's her own fault for going there in the first place, so I see no particular reason why France should go out of its way to please her. And whether or not she has the means to leave, France is not stopping her, so once again, I see no particular reason why France has any responsibility to keeping her there or getting her to leave.

Because all immigrants have the funds to hop on a boat and go right back where they were and it isn't dangerous for any of them. Yup, that's reality alright.

Is this France's fault? For that matter, is this my fault? So why are you getting mad at France or giving me sarcasm about it? It's not France's responsibility to ensure the safety or wellbeing of anyone who is not a French citizen when they are not in France.

I fail to see how it's unnecessary. The only thing they are stopping her from doing is legally calling herself French.

Yes, I'm sure that's the only change associated with citizenship.

As for the rest, it is unnecessary because it has absolutely nothing to do with the role of a government. It is unnecessary control placed in the hands of the government and is, in my mind, therefore a bad thing.


France is a body of people with similar enough culture, language, and heritage that a government was created to exclusively govern that group of people and represent them to foreign governments, and that group of people certainly does have rights, one of which is to maintain their way of life, provided it is not harmful to others. You have yet to prove that it is harmful except that it is somehow intrinsically bad to deny someone citizenship because the culture they maintain is incompatible with France's, which I do not agree with.

I don't have to prove that someone wanting to maintain their way of life is harmful.

That's France's job, since they are the ones making the claim.

They are not declaring it less valid, they are declaring it not French. Since they're French, it's probably up to them to decide what is or is not French.

You're right. Whining about how it's incompatible with their idea of "freedom" isn't declaring it less valid. Not at all.

The French, since we're talking about France.

Which French people? You certainly don't think they all agree, do you?

Not necessarily. Certain lifestyles are better suited within certain cultures.

Different cultures can exist within a single country.

Besides, didn't you claim that citizenship doesn't change anything but her ability to call herself French? If that is true, how would she affect others any more than she is now?

And how would she affect them any more than a woman who is already a French citizen who has decided to wear niqab and be subservient to her husband? Should such a woman have her citizenship revoked?

Then why is it a problem that France has asked her to continue coexisting as she has?

Because they're doing it for reasons of bigotry.

She has not demonstrated any understanding of France's culture. I would hope that you would understand the culture of the country you're trying to get citizenship in. In fact, she hasn't demonstrated an understanding of France's government, either.

And the bolded is a justifiable reason to deny citizenship.

You're being just as bigoted by neglecting to acknowledge the value and validity of French culture.

Ah, the old "It's bigotry if you don't agree with bigotry!" routine. Next you'll be whining that I'm "intolerant of intolerance."

I am only trying to point out that there are several sides to this issue, and that the intentions of the French gov't in rejecting her citizenship may not be, and probably are not, racist or bigoted in intention. I am attempting to understand why the gov't did what it did, instead of assuming that I know more and better than they do.

I'm looking at why they said they did it. If that isn't enough for you, I don't know where you going to get any more information.

Neither do you. Poof, your point is no longer valid.

My point doesn't rely on an assumption either way. Yours does rely on the assumption that she could just up and move.

After all, "She could just leave" falls pretty flat if she, in fact, could not.

It's an excuse used for all sorts of government nonsense and, quite frankly, it gets on my nerves.

If they'd left out the bitching about her lifestyle choices and stuck with the more relevant issues, no one would have an issue with it.
I would. This whole debate presumes that the government should have a say in who gets to be a taxpayer, voter and participant in the community. But with the exception of rare cases (for example when infectious diseases are involved), the matter of immigration really doesn't warrant any sort of communal decision enforcement, and therefore no government action.

I would. This whole debate presumes that the government should have a say in who gets to be a taxpayer, voter and participant in the community. But with the exception of rare cases (for example when infectious diseases are involved), the matter of immigration really doesn't warrant any sort of communal decision enforcement, and therefore no government action.

Ok, I'll rescind the statement. Most people wouldn't have a problem with it. =)

Would you agree that getting citizenship should at least require basic knowledge of how the system works?

Would you agree that getting citizenship should at least require basic knowledge of how the system works?
It would be in the interest of the potential voters. But there are a lot of actual voters who either don't know the system or simply don't know enough about politics in general to make the informed choices that would presumably be in their interest and on which a democracy depends.

Either someone in the country has an unconditional right to vote or not. I don't think the country of your birth has an impact on that.

Denying this woman the right to become a citizen based on the way she dresses or her decision to live subservient to men would require France to refuse citizenship to a range of people with alternative practices. I don't see them making enquiries of every female immigrant as to whether they are a part of the BDSM subculture or deciding that Goth immigrants with their dog collars and chains no longer qualify for French citizenship.

If however, their reason is her lack of knowledge and understanding of French culture and laws, then I fail to see the issue. She is not being denied the right to live in France, but has elected not to fulfil the responsibilities of a French citizen.

QFT.

Just to make another point clear: This situation must also be placed into the context of the more specific socio-cultural situation in Western Europe right now. Muslims (Turks and North Africans in particular) have been emigrating into Britain, Spain, France and Germany in record numbers since the 1970s, and once they've arrived, have been having lots, and I mean LOTS, of children. On the other hand, for many socio-cultural and socio-economic reasons, the (for lack of a better word) "white" populations of these countries have been declining due to emigration and a severe decline in the birth rate. Furthermore, many aspects of traditional culture in Western Europe have fallen by the wayside or merely seen as relics as modern, industrial society moves forward and an increasing number of foreign influences enter the cultural mix.

The actions of the Muslims when they arrive in Europe has not helped things either, especially not in Spain or France. As Nanatsu mentioned in another thread, there have been repeated calls by al-Qaeda leaders for Spain to return to Muslim hands and be re-declared al-Andalus. On the other hand, the French once colonized much of North Africa, and certainly can be culturally seen as one of the most depraved Western nations on Earth in Muslim extremist eyes. There are ample reasons for any Muslim extremist to want to attack France, even though they are not in Iraq.

France has always been a "protector" of sorts of their own values, culture and traditions. They refuse to allow any foreign words into their language, for Pete's sake. They certainly don't make adaptation and acclamation to their culture comparatively easy. I can imagine that this woman, especially, must have had a tough time of it.

Now, here's the catch to this specific situation: This woman, as with over 90 percent of Muslims in the world, probably has no intentions of being a part of "claiming Europe for Islam". She probably simply wants to live her own life. For Pete's sake, it's just a hijab (headscarf). All that's required is for her hair to be covered to show submission to God in her daily life. Many Muslim women do not even wear the hijab and most who do only follow that requirement of covering the top of the head. It poses no real threat whatsoever to French culture and will not be any hindrance to actually identifying this woman if French authorities need to do so.

However, again looking at the demographic trends, and also the youth riots in recent years (of which many youth are Muslims of North African descent who feel singled out in an increasingly self-protective French society), one can understand that even though they are not actually threatened by this particular woman becoming a French citizen and doing things her own way, the French can see her as symbolic of a possible attempt at a "claiming" of Europe for Islamic culture. Denying this woman citizenship can also be seen as a symbol of France's refusal to let that happen. The woman can certainly live in France; she has the freedom to do so. But, as long as she does not conform to the culture of the people of France, she will not be seen as truly French, and the people of France have the freedom to decide who among them is "truly French" or not, just as any other nation has the right to do so, as long as they do not take such considerations to the extreme of genocide or the like.

Citizenship is only a right in the eyes of the nations that consider it a right. In France, as with many other nations, it is truly more of a privilege. Here in America, we view things in terms of rights and their protection, but even so, the rights we enjoy here only truly pass to citizens, and one may only become a citizen through the processes laid out by our laws; the way we decide who is really American. The same goes in France and any other nation. It is their sovereign right to decide such things.

Did you read the whole article or just the fox news snippit?

If you read the whole article, did you happen to miss the part where someone who examined her life found her to be a recluse who has no idea how French society works? Citizenship shouldn't just be given out because it was requested, you should have to know how the society you're living in functions... I mean, she didn't even know she had the right to vote.


As a side point, if the woman in question truly had "no idea about the secular state or the right to vote," as the government's legal expert stated, then she would fail the US citizenship test were she to apply. It's not uncommon for states to require a basic level of familiarity with the system of government. One difference between the French and US requirements is that apparently the French require that you agree with their principles to some extent, whereas in the USA you only have to demonstrate understanding of them.

It's nice to see a couple of intelligent and informed comments in this thread.


I think that only those willing to contribute positively to the state should have the opportunity to take part in it.


Indeed. Citizenship implies consciously taking on a responsability.

You can't become a citizen of a country if you have no idea of the rights and responsabilities which citizenship entail. How can you exercise a responsability that you're not aware of?

Also, France's general policy is: "You're free to practice your own culture and lifestyle, as long as it doesn't contradict the core values of French society." Among those is equality of the sexes. The principle here is that you cannot be a French citizen if you fundamentally disagree with one of the most important aspects of being French. You'd be a living self-contradiction.

If you request citizenship, you're implicitly making a commitment to abide by the responsibilities implied therein. It's basically a social contract. You can't ask for citizenship if you don't know what it means.

Trust the bloody sensationalist media to blow things out of proportion, though.

And trust every Islamophobic idiot on NSG to start screeching about their beloved "Muslim peril".

For the record, I know several Muslim French citizens. They are well integrated. In fact, they're better educated and more progressive than their average fellow citizen; they tend to advocate things such as gay marriage, which is still resisted by conservatives. They are living proof that there need not be a contradiction between the practice of Islam and the values of a progressive society. But drawing attention to that doesn't interest the media, and makes idiots unhappy, because it shatters the basis of their intolerence, and is apparently too complex for their narrow minds to understand.

In other words, the fact that this woman is a Muslim has nothing to do with this topic. Nobody is denied French citizenship on the basis of religion, and Muslims in general have demonstrated their ability to integrate and be productive members of French society. The issue is twofold. First, that she apparently does not believe in one of France's core values - namely, gender equality. Second, that she has not the foggiest idea what her rights and responsabilities as a French citizen would be, which makes her incapable of exercising the responsibilities and rights which define a French citizen. Under these circumstances, granting her citizenship at present would be absurd. There is nothing wrong with her remaining in France, of course.

And yet, there are many people in France who are French citizens yet do not conform to the supposed values of French society - unless you are suggesting that every French born person believes in gender equality. There are no doubt many French people who believe that women should not work or dress provocatively or believe that women should be subservient to their husbands. Why should an immigrant be denied citizenship when not everyone in the country already conforms to the supposed ideal she is in violation of?

Another problem is that they search their husband and wives not here but in their country of origin.

They marry (mostly arranged by the parents) and then the problems start with the children. One part of the parents isn’t European and doesn’t speak the local language, is not aware about the Europe culture and habits. This is making assimilation for the children harder than it should be.

This is making assimilation for the children harder than it should be.
As long as you use the term "assimilation" correctly, I'm not sure.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/assimilation
as·sim·i·la·tion

4. Sociology. the merging of cultural traits from previously distinct cultural groups, not involving biological amalgamation.

Note how it says "merging" rather than "supplanting". Having a household with distinct influences from both might actually produce a more assimilated child: bilingual and with the knowledge and ability to pick the best from both worlds (or the worst, if for some reason they so choose).

As long as you use the term "assimilation" correctly, I'm not sure.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/assimilation


Note how it says "merging" rather than "supplanting". Having a household with distinct influences from both might actually produce a more assimilated child: bilingual and with the knowledge and ability to pick the best from both worlds (or the worst, if for some reason they so choose).

It doesn't work that way. The children aren't bilingual and have later enormous language problems. At home the parents speak the language of their country of origin. Else the parents can't understand each other. So before the child is entering a school it is hearing all the time Turkish by instance and not French (in France).

When the child is ready for school then they'll face a language barrier, which will mark them for the rest of their lives.

And yet, there are many people in France who are French citizens yet do not conform to the supposed values of French society - unless you are suggesting that every French born person believes in gender equality. There are no doubt many French people who believe that women should not work or dress provocatively or believe that women should be subservient to their husbands. Why should an immigrant be denied citizenship when not everyone in the country already conforms to the supposed ideal she is in violation of?

Those are seperate issues. If an immigrant requests citizenship, then she is stating that she is committing herself to a number of responsabilities. (Otherwise, she can't be said to be requesting citizenship.) That being the case, it's a normal response for the authorities to check whether she is actually capable of being a citizen.

Or are you saying: "We can't be sure that French-born people are good citizens, so we shouldn't try to make sure that immigrants are good citizens, either."?

I don't understand all the noise.

Every country is checking foreigners when they ask for citizenship.

Every country is checking foreigners when they ask for citizenship.
But not every country does it the same way. And even more importantly, maybe all of them are wrong. Maybe "citizenship" as a concept should be scrapped and replaced with residency which automatically implies the rights that are assumed to be inherent in a person that is part of the community and on which there is almost no restrictions at all.

Imagine: you want to live somewhere else, so you get on a plane, walk out of the airport with nothing stopping you but people who might want to check your bags and a place to register your arrival (which cannot be rejected), find a job, pay taxes on your earnings and vote on how those taxes are spent. And no idiot with manhood issues sitting on a desk telling you that your "culture doesn't match".

So uncomplicated and so much more justifiable from first principles.

Those are seperate issues. If an immigrant requests citizenship, then she is stating that she is committing herself to a number of responsabilities. (Otherwise, she can't be said to be requesting citizenship.) That being the case, it's a normal response for the authorities to check whether she is actually capable of being a citizen.

Or are you saying: "We can't be sure that French-born people are good citizens, so we shouldn't try to make sure that immigrants are good citizens, either."?

Thats almost what I am saying. I reject the entire concept of a 'good citizen', just as I reject all attempted moral qualifications of good and evil. But the point remains - if the French government believes it is necessary to ensure that only people of a certain moral standard are allowed to be citizens of their country, why only enforce this measure on new arrivals? Are immigrants in some way different that the French government is allowed to tell them what they should think before they receive privileges like voting rights?

But not every country does it the same way. And even more importantly, maybe all of them are wrong. Maybe "citizenship" as a concept should be scrapped and replaced with residency which automatically implies the rights that are assumed to be inherent in a person that is part of the community and on which there is almost no restrictions at all.

Imagine: you want to live somewhere else, so you get on a plane, walk out of the airport with nothing stopping you but people who might want to check your bags and a place to register your arrival (which cannot be rejected), find a job, pay taxes on your earnings and vote on how those taxes are spent. And no idiot with manhood issues sitting on a desk telling you that your "culture doesn't match".

So uncomplicated and so much more justifiable from first principles.


Yes, that's how it works in Alice her Wonderland.

But reality is different. I live in a European country with a European culture and value system. And I like the culture and the values. I want to keep them.

When foreigners come to here, they have to adapt themselves. Sure there's room for some stuff. They can practice their religion by instance.
But what is not acceptable is that they do no adapt on any level and push their values and culture in my throat.

And yes they do.

When I want to start a living in Saudi Arabia then I know that my girlfriend is not allowed to drive a car (which is very good, women can't drive either) and that we can't drink any alcohol, which is a disaster for me. The common people will not speak French, German or English in the streets, so socializing would be hell.

For those reasons I will never visit Saudi Arabia, I'm even silent about starting a life over there.

Saudi Arabia is having the right to make their own model of culture, values and laws like they see it. When I can't accept (which I don't), then I don't have to enter.

But reality is different. I live in a European country with a European culture and value system. And I like the culture and the values. I want to keep them.

Do you seriously believe that in the last 50 to 100 years the culture and values of your European country haven't changed vastly? If you tell us what country you are referring to I'm sure I could illustrate my point.

Do you seriously believe that in the last 50 to 100 years the culture and values of your European country haven't changed vastly? If you tell us what country you are referring to I'm sure I could illustrate my point.

Sure it's in transition all the time. But what's going on now is different. This is no evolution but rather revolution. Sometimes I do not recognize my own country anymore....

Some school in my neighborhood is giving Turkish children with language problems special classes: instead of learning the nation language they are learning...Turkish!

Another school is giving all children Halal food.

These are bridges too far.

It should not be suprising that people aren't leaping at the prospect of letting uncivilized, self-secluding backwards people into their community.

And yet, here you are, in our community.



Did you read the whole article or just the fox news snippit?

If you read the whole article, did you happen to miss the part where someone who examined her life found her to be a recluse who has no idea how French society works? Citizenship shouldn't just be given out because it was requested, you should have to know how the society you're living in functions... I mean, she didn't even know she had the right to vote.

What about the women who were born in France in isolated Christian religious communities? Should they lose their citizenship status because of their lack of knowledge as to their rights?

It doesn't work that way. The children aren't bilingual and have later enormous language problems. At home the parents speak the language of their country of origin. Else the parents can't understand each other. So before the child is entering a school it is hearing all the time Turkish by instance and not French (in France).

When the child is ready for school then they'll face a language barrier, which will mark them for the rest of their lives.

No, it doesn't work that way. As a child who grew up in an immigrant household, I learnt English outside the home and my native tongue inside the home. So, before I entered school, I was already functionally bilingual. I have had the same experience with my children. I have not seen any indication of problems with learning languages in either case. Nor have I seen any in other families who have had similar backgrounds.

No, it doesn't work that way. As a child who grew up in an immigrant household, I learnt English outside the home and my native tongue inside the home. So, before I entered school, I was already functionally bilingual. I have had the same experience with my children. I have not seen any indication of problems with learning languages in either case. Nor have I seen any in other families who have had similar backgrounds.

Turkish children don't play with European ones. Partly it's due the size of the immigrated group. They don't have to play with European children, they find enough friends of their own culture of origin. It’s partly also due 'small' racism on both sides.

Please, there's a real language problem here, trust me. Due this reason just a few Turkish and Moroccan children reach a high level job later, most of them will get a hamburger job, if they already find any job.

Turkish children don't play with European ones. Partly it's due the size of the immigrated group. They don't have to play with European children, they find enough friends of their own culture of origin. It’s partly also due 'small' racism on both sides.

Please, there's a real language problem here, trust me. Due this reason just a few Turkish and Moroccan children reach a high level job later, most of them will get a hamburger job, if they already find any job.

I don't believe you. Children play with whatever other children are around.

And if they aren't able to get high paying jobs, which I doubt, it may be because of racist hiring practices.

Sure it's in transition all the time. But what's going on now is different. This is no evolution but rather revolution. Sometimes I do not recognize my own country anymore....

Some school in my neighborhood is giving Turkish children with language problems special classes: instead of learning the nation language they are learning...Turkish!

Another school is giving all children Halal food.

These are bridges too far.

What makes you think that your grandparents would recognise the country that you live in, halal food (what exactly is the problem with that?) and lessons in Turkish aside (perhaps we should exclude children from education until they have learned the language, a concept that I'm sure James Heller would have enjoyed)? What's so special about the present state of affairs?

In the last fifty years, my European country has changed completely, but we're no worse off for it.

I don't believe you. Children play with whatever other children are around.

And if they aren't able to get high paying jobs, which I doubt, it may be because of racist hiring practices.


No, they don't. First of all, they don't live in the same neighborhood. And they have separated clubs for almost anything. By instance, Turkish kids don't enter scouts. They don't play football (soccer) in the same clubs. In public swimming pools they don't play together. Even there they create a kind of ghettos.

Before getting a high paying job, you need adequate education. If you have a language problem then it's harder to get decent education. The rare ones with the right education will get a high salary, but it will take often longer to reach a decent level. I know a Turkish civilian engineer, he was looking TWO years for a job that fitted with his graduation....

Sure, racism is playing a role, but not as high as you think.

You know one country where racism doesn't exist?

What makes you think that your grandparents would recognise the country that you live in, halal food (what exactly is the problem with that?) and lessons in Turkish aside (perhaps we should exclude children from education until they have learned the language, a concept that I'm sure James Heller would have enjoyed)? What's so special about the present state of affairs?

In the last fifty years, my European country has changed completely, but we're no worse off for it.

There's no problem with Halal food. Only it's being pushed that we all have to eat it. I don't want that. The press jumped on this issue. And according my opinion it's indeed wrong. They can eat as much Halal as they want but they don't have to force me to eat it.

So when I migrate to US of A, instead of learning English, I have to study French (my mother tongue) to understand better English? I don't believe it will work out.

No, they don't. First of all, they don't live in the same neighborhood. And they have separated clubs for almost anything. By instance, Turkish kids don't enter scouts. They don't play football (soccer) in the same clubs. In public swimming pools they don't play together. Even there they create a kind of ghettos.

Do you have any evidence for these claims?

Before getting a high paying job, you need adequate education. If you have a language problem then it's harder to get decent education. The rare ones with the right education will get a high salary, but it will take often longer to reach a decent level. I know a Turkish civilian engineer, he was looking TWO years for a job that fitted with his graduation....

Sure, racism is playing a role, but not as high as you think.

Do you have any evidence for this problem with employment, and that it is caused by lack of language skills?

You know one country where racism doesn't exist?

This has nothing to do with the discussion.

They go to separated schools. As a teenager (30 years ago) I went to the local Athenaeum. In those times, maybe 3 or 4 foreigners were at that school. Currently 3 or 4 Europeans are entering the same school, the others are Turkish or Moroccan. Europeans don’t dare to send their children anymore to this school and the foreigners have often no other choice.

We don’t go out in the same places. Turkish girls don’t enter the night life (sure a few do) and the young men are often forbidden to enter some particular dancing and bars (sure if they are in group, afraid for fights). Turkish man have their own bars, which are very rarely visited by Europeans (I never did, nor did my friends or family).

They even have their own shops, from clothing to food.

This situation is rather common in almost entire Europe. It’s really a kind of apartheid system.

They go to separated schools. ...This situation is rather common in almost entire Europe. It’s really a kind of apartheid system.

Do you have any evidence for these claims?

This situation is rather common in almost entire Europe.
Not at all.

Do you have any evidence for these claims?



Do you have any evidence for this problem with employment, and that it is caused by lack of language skills?



This has nothing to do with the discussion.

Why should I prove this? Any European from Denmark, Holland, Belgium, Germany, France, Italy or Spain (and I forgot many countries) will tell you the same.

Not at all.

Ah no? In which country it isn't?

Why should I prove this? Any European from Denmark, Holland, Belgium, Germany, France, Italy or Spain (and I forgot many countries) will tell you the same.

And I would ask them for evidence as well.

And I would ask them for evidence as well.

Mmm, a little ridiculous. It's like proving that 1 + 1 = 2.

May I ask in which country you have your living?

Mmm, a little ridiculous. It's like proving that 1 + 1 = 2.

May I ask in which country you have your living?

No, it's not. 1+1=2 is basic math, and very obvious. Claims like: "Muslims in Europe are putting themselves in ghettos and refusing to learn the local languages, thereby putting themselves at risk for employment opportunities," are not basic and obvious.

Mmm, a little ridiculous. It's like proving that 1 + 1 = 2.

May I ask in which country you have your living?

Living in Norway all my life, I have never experienced this trend.
2+2=5 much?

There's no problem with Halal food. Only it's being pushed that we all have to eat it. I don't want that. The press jumped on this issue. And according my opinion it's indeed wrong. They can eat as much Halal as they want but they don't have to force me to eat it.

So when I migrate to US of A, instead of learning English, I have to study French (my mother tongue) to understand better English? I don't believe it will work out.

And yet, you're quite happy to force Muslim school children to eat non-Halal food. Most of the takeaways where I live serve only Halal food to cater for the large Islamic population in my community, from Halal kebabs to Halal southern fired chicken. But I don't really care - what difference does it make to me whether food is Halal, kosher, or any other preparation method (assuming its hygienic, of course). Giving Halal food to non-Muslim kids won't harm them. Its not as though it tastes different. You wouldn't even know you were eating it unless someone told you.

Lets say you move to the USA, where upon taking your advice they have decided that only English classes will be taught, excluding all kids who can't speak English. You wish for your kids to receive an education but neither you or they speak English. So you try and send your kids to school so they can learn English and get an education but the school won't accept them because they don't speak English. This Catch-22 prevents any non-English speaking child from getting an education.

I reject the entire concept of a 'good citizen', just as I reject all attempted moral qualifications of good and evil.

It isn't a "moral" issue. It's about functioning as a citizen. Being a citizen means having specific rights and responsabilities. If you request citizenship, you should know what those rights and responsabilities are, or at the very least have some basic understanding of them. Otherwise it's absurd to be asking for citizenship. How can you give citizenship to a person who doesn't know what it means? This woman didn't even know it would enable her to vote. By contrast, all children raised in France have to go through classes of "éducation civique", which teaches them the basics of their rights and duties as future citizens.

Living in Norway all my life, I have never experienced this trend.
2+2=5 much?

Norway wasn't a typical migration country for Turkish and Moroccan people either and it's also a rather big country with few people.

I can be wrong, but I believe that in Norway their numbers are rather small, thus there's no need for ghetto forming on any level. You just don't notice them.

The migration from Turkey and Morocco to Europe was concentrated in West Central Europe (Germany, Holland, Belgium, France) and Southern Europe (Italy and Spain).

And yet, you're quite happy to force Muslim school children to eat non-Halal food. Most of the takeaways where I live serve only Halal food to cater for the large Islamic population in my community, from Halal kebabs to Halal southern fired chicken. But I don't really care - what difference does it make to me whether food is Halal, kosher, or any other preparation method (assuming its hygienic, of course). Giving Halal food to non-Muslim kids won't harm them. Its not as though it tastes different. You wouldn't even know you were eating it unless someone told you.

Lets say you move to the USA, where upon taking your advice they have decided that only English classes will be taught, excluding all kids who can't speak English. You wish for your kids to receive an education but neither you or they speak English. So you try and send your kids to school so they can learn English and get an education but the school won't accept them because they don't speak English. This Catch-22 prevents any non-English speaking child from getting an education.

Well, that's the whole point. I don't care about Halal. People who want to eat it, just do it. But don't force me to eat it. I prefer choice. And if choice is not available then the culture of the country should receive the advantage. Sorry but we don't life in an islam country.

Oh and giving non-Halal food to Muslim kids won't harm them as well.

Turkish children learn Turkish at home and on the playing grounds. Their French is far worse than French children of the same age. This has nothing to do with intelligence or whatever. It's due the social environment.

School can play an important role by giving those Turkish children extra French classes instead of Turkish ones. You learn a language by using it, not by avoiding it.

It isn't a "moral" issue. It's about functioning as a citizen. Being a citizen means having specific rights and responsabilities. If you request citizenship, you should know what those rights and responsabilities are, or at the very least have some basic understanding of them. Otherwise it's absurd to be asking for citizenship. How can you give citizenship to a person who doesn't know what it means? This woman didn't even know it would enable her to vote. By contrast, all children raised in France have to go through classes of "éducation civique", which teaches them the basics of their rights and duties as future citizens.

Her poor understanding of what citizenship entails was not given as the reason for rejecting her application, it was her religious views - 'She has adopted a radical practice of her religion, incompatible with essential values of the French community'. If they feel that she has a poor understanding of citizenship send her to some evening classes. But don't prevent her from becoming a citizen because she has views on gender equality which the government disagrees with.

So, I'm going to guess that you have no evidence for your claims.

Well, that's the whole point. I don't care about Halal. People who want to eat it, just do it. But don't force me to eat it. I prefer choice. And if choice is not available then the culture of the country should receive the advantage. Sorry but we don't life in an islam country.

Turkish children learn Turkish at home and on the playing grounds. Their French is far worse than French children of the same age. This has nothing to do with intelligence or whatever. It's due the social environment.

School can play an important role by giving those Turkish children extra French classes instead of Turkish ones. You learn a language by using it, not by avoiding it.

Wouldn't is make more sense when a choice is not available to make the choice that causes least harm rather than some appeal to tradition? Given a choice between preventing Muslims from practicising their religion and making non-Muslim kids eat halal meat I'd say the latter is least harmful.

Do you seriously expect a child who turns up to a school speaking no French where teachers are not allowed to teach them in Turkish, that they will somehow miraculously start speaking French?

So, I'm going to guess that you have no evidence for your claims.

Yes I do. But I will not waste my time on common knowledge.

Foreigners and Europeans are living together but next to each other.

We don't marry each other. And we separate our social and family life from each other.

I went to McDonalds earlier this day. It's July so lots of students are at work. About 20 people were working at this McDonald, 2 of them were European, the other were from foreign origin. Even at such places there's a kind of apartheid.

I don't know what's so ‘wowow’ about accepting this.

I was in USA several times and I didn't had the feeling that it was that different over there. I saw also black and white neighborhoods. There's also a separation in social and cultural life. Etc...

Wouldn't is make more sense when a choice is not available to make the choice that causes least harm rather than some appeal to tradition? Given a choice between preventing Muslims from practicising their religion and making non-Muslim kids eat halal meat I'd say the latter is least harmful.

Do you seriously expect a child who turns up to a school speaking no French where teachers are not allowed to teach them in Turkish, that they will somehow miraculously start speaking French?


No, I do not accept that harm story. What's next? All European girls a veil? It doesn't harm you know.
Maybe we should all convert to Islam. It doesn't harm.

And where's the 'harm' anyway? I eat already my entire life non-Halal food, I wasn't harmed once.

About the French classes. Yes, it works like that. I learned English and German (and with me the entire classroom) that way. Our English and German teachers never spoke French to us.

Yes I do. But I will not waste my time on common knowledge....I was in USA several times and I didn't had the feeling that it was that different over there. I saw also black and white neighborhoods. There's also a separation in social and cultural life. Etc...

Okay, so that's a confirmation on the lack of evidence. Wow. You sure are good at debating.

I'm not from the USA, and this thread isn't about the USA. So I don't know why you bring that up.

No, I do not accept that harm story. What's next? All European girls a veil? It doesn't harm you know.
Maybe we should all convert to Islam. It doesn't harm.

And where's the 'harm' anyway? I eat already my entire life non-Halal food, I wasn't harmed once.

About the French classes. Yes, it works like that. I learned English and German (and with me the entire classroom) that way. Our English and German teachers never spoke French to us.

Its about choice, or the lack thereof. The example that you give are a choice - people can choose to wear a veil or not, people chan choose to be Muslims or not, the rights of one group do not need to infringe on the other. However, most schools will lack the funding to provide two or more completely separate menus. Muslims have a legitimate reason for eating halal food, non-Mulsims do not have a legitimate reason for not eating it. If you could provide a reason not to eat halal food, other than 'because I don't want to' you might have a point.

You learned two languages by simply having them speak the language at you until you understood it? Thats amazing - is that some form of linguistic osmosis?

Its about choice, or the lack thereof. The example that you give are a choice - people can choose to wear a veil or not, people chan choose to be Muslims or not, the rights of one group do not need to infringe on the other. However, most schools will lack the funding to provide two or more completely separate menus. Muslims have a legitimate reason for eating halal food, non-Mulsims do not have a legitimate reason for not eating it. If you could provide a reason not to eat halal food, other than 'because I don't want to' you might have a point.

You learned two languages by simply having them speak the language at you until you understood it? Thats amazing - is that some form of linguistic osmosis?

You should have the choice, but sometimes it's not possible. Again, in such cases the culture of the country should be the premium choice.
Muslims can always start their own schools with their own habits and stuff. Many Jews follow Jewish schools, so why are the Muslims not doing that?

When I start a living in Turkey, I don’t think I can demand that the entire school should serve non-Halal food.

The language thing started with lots of pictures and very basic dialogues.
Those teachers really never spoke French while teaching in the classroom.

I have to recall from my head, but I believed that those Turkish children received 4 hours of French a week. It was entirely replaced by Turkish classes. Also I have to add, it's not common in all schools. It was just one school that started this procedure and it received lots of critique in the media.

Also we are talking about Turkish children who understand a little French...

You should have the choice, but sometimes it's not possible. Again, in such cases the culture of the country should be the premium choice.
Muslims can always start their own schools with their own habits and stuff. Many Jews follow Jewish schools, so why are the Muslims not doing that?

When I start a living in Turkey, I don’t think I can demand that the entire school should serve non-Halal food.

The language thing started with lots of pictures and very basic dialogues.
Those teachers really never spoke French while teaching in the classroom.

I have to recall from my head, but I believed that those Turkish children received 4 hours of French a week. It was entirely replaced by Turkish classes. Also I have to add, it's not common in all schools. It was just one school that started this procedure and it received lots of critique in the media.

I thought you wanted them to integrate - now you are suggesting that they go off and from their own schools? How will they integrate then?

Recall from you own head? Forgive me if I'm skeptical but I'd rather see these calims from source outwith your head.

I thought you wanted them to integrate - now you are suggesting that they go off and from their own schools? How will they integrate then?

Recall from you own head? Forgive me if I'm skeptical but I'd rather see these calims from source outwith your head.

No. IMHO they should attend European schools and adapt themselves to the culture and habits of these schools. With respect of their own religion and culture as far as possible. By instance, a small room can be dedicated for praying.

The Halal food shouldn't be a problem as well. People who are offended by eating non-Halal food can get Halal food if they accept to pay the extra cost. Another solution is eating home prepared meals (that's what my parents mostly did for me).

Sure, I want you to give a link. But it isn't easy to find an English one. Do you speak French, German or Dutch?

They should insist on cultural assimilation.

Sure, it's fine and dandy that you wipe your ass with your bare hand where you come from, but you're in France now. Between the bidet and the toilet paper, welcome to civilization.

This situation is rather common in almost entire Europe. It’s really a kind of apartheid system.

Exaggeration, hysteria and hype. I suggest either a "chill pill" or a trip around Europe. Or give up trolling, if you aren't serious. Its hard to tell these days.....

They should insist on cultural assimilation.

Sure, it's fine and dandy that you wipe your ass with your bare hand where you come from, but you're in France now. Between the bidet and the toilet paper, welcome to civilization.

If they really want to wipe their ass with their bare hands then that's fine for me.

But I don't want to be pushed to do the same. Even when it doesn't harm, I'm not prepared to start doing it.

I used to work at a large software company located in Redmond, WA. I won't tell you the name, but it rhymes with Bike-ro-soft. I was there from 1997 to 2006, with a little one year vacation (expenses paid) to an all-inclusive resort called "BIAP" 2004-2005.

So, I get back to work in like June of 2005, well acquainted with the finer points of how to occasionally avoid sitting down in muddy boot prints in porta-johns and the ubiquitous water bottle in the can. This dude in Redmond, who I am sure is a very nice man and a fine American, worked on my floor somewhere. He dressed conservatively and wore a big-ass Wahabbi beard. I never heard him speak or learned his name, but he "walked like a duck" so... On occasion I would enter the mens room as he was leaving. Invariably, the counter/mirror/floor would be dripping with water following his 10 minute post-shat birdbath. There would be a stip of toilet paper running the length of the crack between the stall and the wall. For extra privacy, or maybe to keep the evil eye at bay. Apparently that was ALL he used the TP for, since there would also be 2 empty (but wet) coffee cups on top of the trash, and the stall with the TP weatherstripping would also have a wet toilet seat. :gas:

A couple of observations:

* I hope the company burns his keyboards when he replaces them.
* So Hajis want their own restroom? Hell, *I* wanted him to have his own damn restroom. Let them wade around in their own little private e-coli slip-and-slides for all I care. But please spare me sharing their feces runoff.
* Also, I can understand wiping your ass with your hand if TP is scarce in your country, and you have neither a rock, pinecone, nor PRICKLY PEAR CACTUS to substitute. But to pass up free buttwipe in favor of your bare hand? That's a mental disorder in my opinion.
* Finally, I would prefer they be given ample opportunity to use Muslim-only washrooms back in their countries of origin to ensure their fragile sensibilities are not offended by us non-barehanded-ass-wiping infidels.

Exaggeration, hysteria and hype. I suggest either a "chill pill" or a trip around Europe. Or give up trolling, if you aren't serious. Its hard to tell these days.....

No, I'm not trolling. Why?

Come to France, Belgium, Holland or Germany and try to date a nice conservative Turkish girl.

What I'm describing is just human behavior. We all do this in the same circumstances.

Her poor understanding of what citizenship entails was not given as the reason for rejecting her application, it was her religious views - 'She has adopted a radical practice of her religion, incompatible with essential values of the French community'. If they feel that she has a poor understanding of citizenship send her to some evening classes. But don't prevent her from becoming a citizen because she has views on gender equality which the government disagrees with.

Given that she wants to become a French citizen, the secularest of the secular nations (they had a revolution for it, among other things), it should come as no surprise that her emphasis on religion is viewed poorly on her citizenship application.

Given that she wants to become a French citizen, the secularest of the secular nations (they had a revolution for it, among other things), it should come as no surprise that her emphasis on religion is viewed poorly on her citizenship application.

That's even worse. A secular state should not meddle in the religious affairs of its citizens. A secular state is not an atheist state - it should neither oppose nor support any religious belief.

Sure, I want you to give a link. But it isn't easy to find an English one. Do you speak French, German or Dutch?

Any of those will be sufficient.

That's even worse. A secular state should not meddle in the religious affairs of its citizens. A secular state is not an atheist state - it should neither oppose nor support any religious belief.

It's NSG's Muslim Exceptionalism cropping up again. Had this woman been a secluded Christian or Jew, the vast majority of the posters here would have conveniently howled about how the Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys are oppressing the woman's freedom of religion, or something to that effect.

Sure, I want you to give a link. But it isn't easy to find an English one. Do you speak French, German or Dutch?

J'aimera avoir les liens en français, s'il vous plait.

Her poor understanding of what citizenship entails was not given as the reason for rejecting her application, it was her religious views - 'She has adopted a radical practice of her religion, incompatible with essential values of the French community'. If they feel that she has a poor understanding of citizenship send her to some evening classes. But don't prevent her from becoming a citizen because she has views on gender equality which the government disagrees with.

I can't say I'm entirely happy with it. But if she chooses to apply for citizenship in France, she is logically doing so because she recognises and upholds core French values. How can you be a citizen of a country when you don't understand, or disagree with, one of its most fundamental and essential values?

Gods, I hate Fox News, but I hate you more, RhynoD, for your penchant for using this detestable news source for making threads. :sniper:



You know I'm joking, I can't hate you. You're a cool dude, even if you love vagina too much and shyte.

In other words, the fact that this woman is a Muslim has nothing to do with this topic. Nobody is denied French citizenship on the basis of religion,

...unless they adopt a practice of their religion that the government doesn't like.

and Muslims in general have demonstrated their ability to integrate and be productive members of French society.

Indeed. I bet even Muslims who choose to dress differently and approach relationships in a non-standard way can do this.

The issue is twofold. First, that she apparently does not believe in one of France's core values - namely, gender equality.

When equality becomes forced, it is it really freedom?

Second, that she has not the foggiest idea what her rights and responsabilities as a French citizen would be, which makes her incapable of exercising the responsibilities and rights which define a French citizen.

And, once again, this is actually a justifiable reasoning for denying her citizenship. And if they'd left it that, no one would even have heard of this case.


Some school in my neighborhood is giving Turkish children with language problems special classes: instead of learning the nation language they are learning...Turkish!

Instead of or in addition to? Often, when children do not yet speak the dominant language, it is best to teach them some subjects in their native language while they catch up on the dominant one. That way, they don't fall behind in those other subjects while they are trying to learn the dominant language.

Another school is giving all children Halal food.

Oh noes! Instead of either making two different meals or ensuring that some students go hungry, a school is making one meal that most or even all the children there can eat! Clearly this is an evil we cannot let stand!

There's no problem with Halal food. Only it's being pushed that we all have to eat it. I don't want that. The press jumped on this issue. And according my opinion it's indeed wrong. They can eat as much Halal as they want but they don't have to force me to eat it.

You're being forced to eat Halal food? Regular restaurants are closing down? They're coming into your house and force feeding it to you?

So when I migrate to US of A, instead of learning English, I have to study French (my mother tongue) to understand better English? I don't believe it will work out.

It's often done with children who speak Spanish. They study in Spanish as they are learning English, so that they don't fall behind. Once their English skills are good enough, the rest of their classes are taught in English as well.

So why is putting Halal food on the school menu an example of 3b1l m0zl3m 0ppreshun but putting Kosher food isn't?

Oh and giving non-Halal food to Muslim kids won't harm them as well.

Only in that they'll either go hungry or have to deal with the religious implications of eating such food.

I suppose we should make sure to give Hindu students beef and Jewish students non-kosher foods as well?


No, I do not accept that harm story. What's next? All European girls a veil? It doesn't harm you know.

If the schools had some reason to give the students head coverings, it would make sense for them to use coverings that would work well for all the students.

But since they don't have a reason to do so, it isn't an issue.

You should have the choice, but sometimes it's not possible. Again, in such cases the culture of the country should be the premium choice.
Muslims can always start their own schools with their own habits and stuff. Many Jews follow Jewish schools, so why are the Muslims not doing that?

Ah yes, because segregation is the answer!

I suppose we should make sure to give Hindu students beef and Jewish students non-kosher foods as well?

Of course not, because that would be Religious Discrimination™.

I used to work at a large software company located in Redmond, WA. I won't tell you the name, but it rhymes with Bike-ro-soft. I was there from 1997 to 2006, with a little one year vacation (expenses paid) to an all-inclusive resort called "BIAP" 2004-2005.

Wow, I sure love your resume. Soldier, doctor, lawyer, mind-reader, and now computer programmer! :rolleyes:

You don't really expect any of us to believe any of that, do you?

Wow, I sure love your resume. Soldier, doctor, lawyer, mind-reader, and now computer programmer! :rolleyes:

You don't really expect any of us to believe any of that, do you?

Ask me a question about the Spring Framework...

What about the women who were born in France in isolated Christian religious communities? Should they lose their citizenship status because of their lack of knowledge as to their rights?
No, but if they were to immigrate anywhere else and refused to learn anything at all about their new country and applied for citizenship, they should certainly be denied it.

If I moved to another country, I would learn the local language even if I sucked at it and I wouldn't try to get citizenship unless this countries values are in line with mine. My parents are from the US and they moved here (Canada) before I was born. They have refused to get citizenship in this country because they disagree with the monarchy and don't want to swear an oath which includes an oath to the queen because it would be dishonest. Meanwhile, there are people here who disagree with the monarchy and are citizens because they were born here. You don't just get citizenship for the perks, you get citizenship because you believe in the country.

No, you get citizenship for the perks.

No, you get citizenship for the perks.
Well, it shouldn't just be about the perks. You should have to know something about what being a good citizen entails if you're trying to get citizenship in a place. Yes, people who were born there don't necessarily have to know, but in theory they've often been taught this at some point (whether or not they paid attention is another matter) and really, if someone wanted to go to Morocco and get citizenship there, they would have to learn about civic rights and responsibilities before they're given citizenship too.

Well, it shouldn't just be about the perks. You should have to know something about what being a good citizen entails if you're trying to get citizenship in a place. Yes, people who were born there don't necessarily have to know, but in theory they've often been taught this at some point (whether or not they paid attention is another matter) and really, if someone wanted to go to Morocco and get citizenship there, they would have to learn about civic rights and responsibilities before they're given citizenship too.

Until we start taking citizenship away from the morons who who born with it, and who know nothing about their rights and responsibilities, I don't really see an issue with not caring if our new citizens do. Provided they nonetheless get their asses thrown in jail if they break laws, and so forth.

Their children will learn. Their grandchildren will learn even more. Let them sit around reminiscing of their childhoods in the slums of Peru, or the opium fields of Afghanistan if they wish.

Until we start taking citizenship away from the morons who who born with it, and who know nothing about their rights and responsibilities, I don't really see an issue with not caring if our new citizens do. Provided they nonetheless get their asses thrown in jail if they break laws, and so forth.
Would you accept "we have enough morons with citizenship who have no clue about their rights and responsibilities, we don't need more" as a satisfactory answer?

Would you accept "we have enough morons with citizenship who have no clue about their rights and responsibilities, we don't need more" as a satisfactory answer?

No.

Protection of morons should not be based on citizenship or lack thereof.

Ask me a question about the Spring Framework...

I'd prefer your résumé.

No, but if they were to immigrate anywhere else and refused to learn anything at all about their new country and applied for citizenship, they should certainly be denied it.

In other words, you're discriminating because they're immigrants.

If I moved to another country, I would learn the local language even if I sucked at it and I wouldn't try to get citizenship unless this countries values are in line with mine. My parents are from the US and they moved here (Canada) before I was born. They have refused to get citizenship in this country because they disagree with the monarchy and don't want to swear an oath which includes an oath to the queen because it would be dishonest. Meanwhile, there are people here who disagree with the monarchy and are citizens because they were born here. You don't just get citizenship for the perks, you get citizenship because you believe in the country.

This has nothing to do with what I asked. And it also does not reflect the reality of the vast majority of immigrants to Canada who become Canadian citizens. Most immigrants have far more important things to worry about than the royal family.

Yes, I'm sure that's the only change associated with citizenship.

Paying taxes, voting...Still no one's stopping her from living there, etc.

As for the rest, it is unnecessary because it has absolutely nothing to do with the role of a government. It is unnecessary control placed in the hands of the government and is, in my mind, therefore a bad thing.

Declaring citizenship and controlling immigration has nothing to do with the role of the government?

I don't have to prove that someone wanting to maintain their way of life is harmful.

So why should I have to prove it's not?

That's France's job, since they are the ones making the claim.

Once again again, that's not what France is saying, nor is it was I am saying. Do you base all of your arguments on such mistaken assumptions?

What France is saying, and what I am not necessarily agreeing with but do understand the reasoning behind, is that her culture is not necessarily harmful but IS necessarily not French, nor compatible with French culture with her apparent level of understanding of French culture.[/quote]

You're right. Whining about how it's incompatible with their idea of "freedom" isn't declaring it less valid. Not at all.

So you're saying that women being completely subservient to men and ignorant of even the ability to vote in the country she's in isn't a less valid lifestyle than gender equality and universal suffrage?

Which French people? You certainly don't think they all agree, do you?

The French people that are represented by the French government which has made these decisions for them as their representative.

Different cultures can exist within a single country.

I never said anything otherwise.

Besides, didn't you claim that citizenship doesn't change anything but her ability to call herself French? If that is true, how would she affect others any more than she is now?

Demonstrating an understanding of French culture demonstrates that her lifestyle is by choice, not by ignorance of alternatives. It also demonstrates that she is capable of handling the responsibilities of being a legal French citizen

And how would she affect them any more than a woman who is already a French citizen who has decided to wear niqab and be subservient to her husband? Should such a woman have her citizenship revoked?

This woman has not demonstrated that she is capable of making a choice to the contrary or understanding the culture around her.

Because they're doing it for reasons of bigotry.

It's bigoted to deny citizenship because of a complete lack of understanding of the culture and country she is in?

And the bolded is a justifiable reason to deny citizenship.

Which, as it happens, is actually part of the reason why she was denied citizenship.

You have been reading the other posts in this thread, right?

Ah, the old "It's bigotry if you don't agree with bigotry!" routine. Next you'll be whining that I'm "intolerant of intolerance."

That's not what I said, or implied, or meant to say, or wanted to say, or thought about wanting to imply that I might think about saying. It IS bigoted to refuse to acknowledge the differences between her culture and France's culture and their entirely justified desire to protect their culture from change that they feel is not a change for the better.

I'm looking at why they said they did it. If that isn't enough for you, I don't know where you going to get any more information.

You're looking at why you think they did it, not why you think they think they did it.

My point doesn't rely on an assumption either way. Yours does rely on the assumption that she could just up and move.

My assumption has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not she has the means to leave. It has everything with whether or not France has any reason to care whether or not she has the mean to leave. Difference.

After all, "She could just leave" falls pretty flat if she, in fact, could not.

"She could just leave" is a simplification demonstrating the point that the government of France is not responsible for her coming or going.

It's an excuse used for all sorts of government nonsense and, quite frankly, it gets on my nerves.

...So just leave?

In other words, you're discriminating because they're immigrants.

I suppose... but it's more a matter of immigrants choose to immigrate so they should make a bit of an effort. People don't choose where they're born.

This has nothing to do with what I asked. And it also does not reflect the reality of the vast majority of immigrants to Canada who become Canadian citizens. Most immigrants have far more important things to worry about than the royal family.
Like getting the rest of their family to come along because one of them had enough money to buy citizenship?

A couple of my friends are trying for landed resident status... because they don't have money this is much harder than if they were loaded.

I suppose... but it's more a matter of immigrants choose to immigrate so they should make a bit of an effort. People don't choose where they're born.

Like getting the rest of their family to come along because one of them had enough money to buy citizenship?

A couple of my friends are trying for landed resident status... because they don't have money this is much harder than if they were loaded.

Do you believe this woman chose where she was going to go? I don't think so. I also think that this would have been clear to anyone. The intelligent thing would have been to deal with the underlying sexism and misogyny, rather than punish the woman for having been kept ignorant of her rights.

As for the money discussion, i would hazard the guess that if this woman, or her husband, had been rich enough, she would also have her citizenship.

Do you believe this woman chose where she was going to go? I don't think so. I also think that this would have been clear to anyone. The intelligent thing would have been to deal with the underlying sexism and misogyny, rather than punish the woman for having been kept ignorant of her rights.

She's not being punished, she's not being deported or anything. She's still in the country, she's still being allowed to live there, but she's just not being a citizen. As far as I know, she married the guy because she thought she could get French citizenship out of it and they're trying to prevent such things.

But really, what are they going to do? Take her from her home, remove her head to toe coverings and tell her that she has rights that she should accept? Throw her husband in jail for spousal abuse? Or are they going to tell her that she doesn't know enough about France and how it works to be given citizenship and send her home until she has learned more.

It's not like everyone has the right to any citizenship they want.

As for the money discussion, i would hazard the guess that if this woman, or her husband, had been rich enough, she would also have her citizenship.

Well, to some extent, no money will give you enough to cheat on a citizenship test... and France might have higher standards for immigration and citizenship than they do here.

I mean, in theory you're supposed to have to know one of the official languages and pass a test, but really, you just need to know one person who took it who can tell you what to write where and voila... citizenship without fulfilling the basic requirements. I do know that often families will send one family member over, who will then sponsor the rest of his family who aren't citizens... but they'll check the box to get voter registration cards when they do their taxes and they'll all turn out to vote without being properly qualified (of course one is in deep shit if one is caught doing this... it counts as breaking an oath which can preclude one from a pile of jobs and this and that).

Declaring citizenship and controlling immigration has nothing to do with the role of the government?

Of course it does. Determining how one dresses and structures one's relationships, on the other hand, is not. Neither is imposing cultural restrictions on personal decisions.


So you're saying that women being completely subservient to men and ignorant of even the ability to vote in the country she's in isn't a less valid lifestyle than gender equality and universal suffrage?

Subservience and gender equality are not incompatible. As long as she can make the choice to live just as a man would, gender equality exists. If she then chooses not to, that is her choice, just as it would be a man's choice if he wanted to be subservient to his wife.

And being ignorant of the ability to vote isn't a lifestyle, really. It's a matter of ignorance - one that should certainly be rectified. I do find it rather surprising, though. I was under the impression that most countries had some sort of class you had to take before officially applying for citizenship.

I never said anything otherwise.

You have been treating "French culture" as if it's a single monolithic whole.

Demonstrating an understanding of French culture demonstrates that her lifestyle is by choice, not by ignorance of alternatives. It also demonstrates that she is capable of handling the responsibilities of being a legal French citizen

This doesn't answer my question.

This woman has not demonstrated that she is capable of making a choice to the contrary or understanding the culture around her.

If one a priori assumes that she has made the wrong choice, it will never appear as if she could make a choice to the contrary.

It's bigoted to deny citizenship because of a complete lack of understanding of the culture and country she is in?

No, and you know damn well I haven't been arguing that.

It is bigotry to deny citizenship because one has chosen a lifestyle you don't like.

Which, as it happens, is actually part of the reason why she was denied citizenship.

You have been reading the other posts in this thread, right?

Yes. Have you read mine? I have said repeatedly that, if they had left it at that, this wouldn't even be news and that I wouldn't have an issue with it.

That's not what I said, or implied, or meant to say, or wanted to say, or thought about wanting to imply that I might think about saying.

It is from my point of view. You have a problem with me having a problem with the bigotry exhibited by French officials. *shrug*

It IS bigoted to refuse to acknowledge the differences between her culture and France's culture and their entirely justified desire to protect their culture from change that they feel is not a change for the better.

Not at all. I just recognize that the people of a nation are not the borg. They don't all have a single culture simply because they live within arbitrarily drawn borders. Multiple cultures exist within a nation, or a region, or a city, or even a neighborhood.

And it is not a government's place to impose cultural restrictions. Those are personal decisions.

You're looking at why you think they did it, not why you think they think they did it.

I don't think you said what you mean to here.

Nonetheless, the article quotes the report. It's clear that her lack of understanding of French government was not the whole story. They also expressed the fact that her personal religious and lifestyle choices were a problem.