The woman here was the antithesis of feminism, she's completely subservient to the males in her household. Do you give her citizenship hoping she will learn of the modern emancipation of women? or do you exclude her as being unlikely to ever integrate?

What can you do to change her situation? An approach from outside her group would likely be rebuffed by the males before the woman herself was ever reached.

It's a nasty situation, but I'd point to the males around her as being the targets for blame here. They have completed ignored the implied social contract and have continued to take advantage of this woman by keeping her isolated from the society that would give her her rights.

so... umm... why the hell are the MEN who train/coerce/force them to submit "French enough" to be citizens?

grr.

Just more proof that France isn't the US. Thank God we have a Bill of Rights here, even if its being presently shredded by Bush & a spineless Congress. France does nothing to integrate Muslims into society & then is surprised when they 'cling to religion'. With all our faults at least in the US you can practice any religion you want, even the one's I don't understand. So much for 'Egalite'...

I don't think that the problem is so straightforward.

Here's a quotation from a communique of the French feminist group Ni Putes Ni Soumises (Neither Whores Nor Submissive): "The Republic can in no manner validate this kind of tool of oppression and submission of women."

The group is lead by Fadela Amara, a Franco-Algerian feminist and the current Secretary of State for Urban Policies. The group focuses on relieving the pressures on women that can exist in strict Muslim lifestyles, like wearing the hijab (or in Mme Faiza's case, the burqa) as well as pressures to drop out of school and marry early.

It's pretty ironic that this case come to international attention so close to la Fête Nationale, celebrating the 219th anniversary of the storming of the Bastille. France is very secure in its values stemming from the revolution, one of the biggest being la laïcité (secularism). There is just a different idea of what it means to be secular.

The 2004 law banning religious symbols in public schools first seemed to me like a huge breach of liberty, but my French professors kept telling me that the ideas of laïcité are different. Sadly, that law is also grossly misrepresented in the US as an attempt of the government to ban headscarves in all public interactions. It's just in public schools, not including the university.

Also, an article from Le Monde says, "qu'elle n'a adopté ce costume qu'après son arrivée en France à la demande de son mari et qu'elle le porte plus par habitude que par conviction." (She didn't start wearing the burqa until she came to France upon the request or her husband, and she now wears it more out of habit than faith.)

And here's a special report from Le Monde that gives responses from politicians. It seems that most people––from both the left (PS) and the right (UMP)––think it was a good decision, but that further legislation may need to be done.

It can't be so easily boiled down without considering the other side.

Cedar: What probably happened was the husband moved from Morocco to France to get a job, then became a citizen, and then brought his wife over. Their three kids were all French-born. It's a pretty common process with Francophone Maghrebins.

Sly: The French Déclaration des droits de l'Homme et du citoyen was adopted in 1789, the same year as our Bill of Rights. It holds constitutional value. It is very irresponsible to say things that are clearly false. The Déclaration is seen worldwide as a bastion of human rights. You may be confusing France's legal system with England's common law system. You are wrong.

One note: the English translation may be misleading as the word "Man" (homme in French) is clearly referring to a human, and there is no intention of gender.

What I don't get are the arguments that it is ok to deny someone citizenship to a country because they don't assimilate. Feminism should not be a requirement to live legally and permanently in a country. Acting like what the government thinks everyone else acts like in a certain country should not be a requisite. If it were, then I suppose everyone should fill out a questionnaire periodically about their likes and dislikes, their daily rituals and bad habits, and those who are too outside the margins of "normal" should be deported.

She covers her body. She is subservient to men. Somehow that doesn't seem to me like a reason to deny her rights.

If somehow this can be taken in a way beneficial to her (is assimilation somehow better for the person who assimilates, or those to whom they conform?), then please let me know.

cedar: Haven't you ever seen the Pepe Le Pew cartoons? Coercion is very French!

As is smelling bad, apparently.

I'm not sure how you can argue that this isn't directly related to patriarchy, but that's absolutely not a valid reason to deny her citizenship. Maybe we're not getting the whole story, and there are other reasons involved, but I'm sure they are all pretty weak.

I think it is completely understandable that a country wants to make sure its new citizens adhere to the core values of the constitution. And that is in most European countries: men and women are treated equally and have the same rights. And as I remember from my great aunt who applied for U.S. citizenship, she had to complete a special course and study all the important historical facts etc. Faiza M. was interviewed and "The reports said she explained her attire, her aversion to leaving her house, and full submission to her husband's authority as part of the couple's practice of Salafism — a literal reading and rigorous observance of the Qu'ran.", (Time-article but the one in Le Monde mentioned above is better.)
It is a really complex issue and cannot be reduced to “lack of freedom of religion” in France.

Jake N--I never said France didn't have a Bill of Rights, I said "so much for 'Egalite' ". French conceptions of secularism prevent the free exercise of religion. Thank God that the US Constitution offers that protection. And while you're right that the law against headscarves only applies to public schools, the French Court has ruled that employers can prevent women from wearing headscarves as well. In the US that would be discrimination.

Moreover, the school headscarf law as enforced & interpreted only applies to Muslims wearing headscarves, not Christians wearing crucifixes, nor Jews wearing yarmulkes. Again, so much for "Egalite". It was clearly supported & enacted as a reaction against rising Muslim immigration.

Whether the woman adopted the burqa upon moving to France, or grew up wearing it is hardly the point. The state should not have the right to decide what's legitimate religious practice & what is not.

The simple fact really is that its hard to see France as a bastion of feminism. Conversely, they have adopted a wide-ranging set of policies which serve to repress Muslims and Africans. In that regard, France is quite possibly the least multi-cultural nation on earth.

sly:
In that regard, France is quite possibly the least multi-cultural nation on earth.

You mean outside of pretty much every African nation or Muslim nation, right?

Also interesting, in a "my brain just imploded" kind of way, is that the Le Monde article says Faiza M was unaware of the right to vote. Reading all this, I'm having also having trouble in seeing how this case isn't related to patriarchy.

Jake N., I'm afraid I don't buy your French professors' argument. When conspicuous religious imagery was being banned in state schools, the Muslim headscarf pretty much all the politicians would talk about. If the French were that keen on laïcité, they wouldn't have made an exception for small Christian crosses...

I must say, it was kinda weird living in France at that time and seeing the disconnect between the domestic and international media. Same thing seems to be happening here, but to a lesser extent.

Jake N. : given that French feminist Olympe de Gouges felt it necessary in 1791 to publish a declaration "des droits de la Femme et de la Citoyenne" in 1791, precisely because women were excluded under the first Declaration of Rights from voting and having any public authority, it's disingenuous to say that the French really meant "humankind" when they said "l'Homme". Women at the time clearly didn't think so, or feel that their rights were being respected - so why do we get to decide, two hundred years later, that they were wrong?

I, too, am having a very hard time understanding how this is in any way separate from the patriarchy. Religion is one of the most dangerous and pervasive patriarchal vehicles of discrimination and hate, particularly against women. I find it particularly disgusting because of the implication that women's inferior status in many of the major religions is thought to come from some divine ordinance, as though even god/allah/whatever doesn't believe in equality. I feel like many times when religion enters a feminist discussion, there's an unspoken rule that it is not OK to criticize any sort of practice or belief, even when those same practices or beliefs would be ripped to shreds if sanctioned by any other type of institution.

I don't feel like I can really form a firm opinion on this particular case because I don't understand all of the ins and outs of gaining French citizenship. Certainly this woman's religion shouldn't excuse her from meeting the same requirements that would be demanded of a non-muslim. That being said, if she does meet all of the requirements, her religion shouldn't prevent her from becoming a citizen.

Like I commented on the other post about this (see http://community.feministing.com/2008/07/true-headlinemuslim-too-submis.html ):

brooklynn18 posted on July 11, 2008, at 06:59PM: "Like most things I read in the news, I'm not really sure what to do with this one..."

Me neither.

brooklynn18 posted on July 11, 2008, at 06:59PM: "...The grounds for this ruling are just scary..."

Yeah. I mean, I could almost understand if the grounds were "one citizen, one vote" instead, the government didn't want to give her husband two votes, and she gave the impression that any vote of hers would essentially be her husband voting via her if she did get to vote in French elections.

Woah. Woah. Woah.

Kimberly: Right from the text of the law: "Dans les écoles, les collèges et les lycées publics, le port de signes ou tenues par lesquels les élèves manifestent ostensiblement une appartenance religieuse est interdit."

(In public elementary, middle, and high schools, the wearing of signs or dress by which students conspicuously show religious adherence is forbidden.)

It DOES NOT say just hijabs or burqas. Big honking crosses or yarmulkes also fall into this category. While the law could obviously not have passed if it just mentioned the "voile islamique," I think that the passing of this law made French politicians really analyze the role of "une société laïque." Now maybe politicians talked about hijabs more, but that does not mean that the law didn't apply (at least in writing) to all conspicuous religious symbols.

sixthlight: Despite what I said before about "homme" and man in the Déclaration, it is not even a question now whether or not it applies to all people. The feelings of one radical woman in a personal letter to the queen can surely not be said to exemplify the feelings of all 18th century women. Some, absolutely; but all, I doubt it.

When it comes down to it, I have to agree (from a theoretical point, at least) with Hille. States have the sovereignty to decide who will benefit from the status of citizenship. Even though I personally think that both the 2004 secularism law and the denial of citizenship to Mme Faïza M. are crazy and terrible and infringements on basic liberties as I have learned in the US, you have to at least give the other side a chance.

I'm certainly not the best person to speak for the French government, as I'm just a student of the language. I just fear the tendency to jump upon a topic before getting information or thinking about it from both sides.

The feelings of one radical woman in a personal letter to the queen can surely not be said to exemplify the feelings of all 18th century women. Some, absolutely; but all, I doubt it.

The French Revolution screwed over French women for the next hundred and fifty years, not least because their rights were not explicitly safeguarded - they weren't considered citizens, they weren't allowed to vote, they couldn't hold property, the list goes on. The revolutionaries executed women who tried to play a political role, stated over and over that women should be confined to the private sphere of the home, and shut down all the women's political clubs. While I don't dispute that modern France acknowledges the Declaration to cover everyone, the situation in 18th century France was not the same.

Honestly I think people are yet again getting the story wrong and simplifying it (as often happens when a story from another country is transferred to American media). The women was not denied citizenship on the basis that she was wearing a burka alone. That is just the eye catching headline that the American media seemed to latch on to. According to Danish news media the socialworker who investigated the case said that even though the women has lived in France for eight years and speaks the language well, she has completely submitted herself to her spouse and her male relatives. This is based on the fact that she lives in seclusion, completely isolated from the French society. She knows nothing of the secular state or about the right to vote. She finds her secluded way of life completely normal and has never thought to question it or thought that it could be changed, the social worker has stated.

I would say this case has alot more to do than whether or not she is exercising her religious right. Should the French state condone that women are isolating themselves in their own homes? Also America is a country made up of immigrants and with a small to no welfare system. France along with other European countries are having problems with the integration of immigrants, unfortunately especially from Muslim countries, into the work force and they therefor carry a large weight in the welfare system receiving a large part of social subsidies. In Europe therefore its not just about values, but also about protecting the social welfare system which relies on a solidarity that everybody will carry the weight and responsibility of holding the system together. I'm sorry I'm rambling but this case and so many other cases are about so much more than just burka or no burka, and secularism.

Jake N., Again, I don't dispute the wording of the law, but its *intent* and how the interpretation of "conspicuous" let (Catholic) Christians continue to wear their usual small but totally visible crosses in state schools. Do you think that was accidental? That the law also affected around 200 Sikhs plus other small groups was just bad luck, as far as I can tell.

All this is not to say that I assume the French were having a go at Muslims in the case of Faiza M.

Ayla: " I feel like many times when religion enters a feminist discussion, there's an unspoken rule that it is not OK to criticize any sort of practice or belief, even when those same practices or beliefs would be ripped to shreds if sanctioned by any other type of institution."

Well, you are not alone in that feeling.

The reason for this in my opinion is that multiculturalism has been allowed to completely hijack progressive politics for the last fifteen years or so and in the end it has perverted liberalism by shielding non-Western patriarchal, homophobic and violent cultures and religions from criticism.

Compare the ACLU's tepid response to a Muslim charter school in Minnesota (Google it) with full blown religious services in a publicly funded school versus its case history with Judeo-Christian practices (I am an atheist before someone assumes a non-existent religious bias on my part - I want to see both groups in court for using tax money to support religion).

In the name of fighting racism certain segments of the multicultural wing have further learned to brand as 'racist' any criticism against "brown people" (their term, not mine, habitually used in sardonic fashion to imply a racist intent), including ironically as I have found non-white critics. This is ultimately a form of bullying in which people can exploit society's zero-tolerance attitude towards racism in order to shield an ideology from due criticism.

Thus women, homosexuals, transgendered people, children and others with innate characteristics end up being expected to celebrate the 'diversity' of opinion on whether we should have equality before the law and acceptance in society. Notice for example how "hate speech" laws never get around to banning the Torah or Qur'an with their murderous invocations against homosexuals and others.

Multiculturalism has really turned the world upside down where 'progressives' equivocate and play political games on behalf of tradition and patriarchal religion, whilst seemingly conservative people (especially Europe's center-right) more boldly stand up for free expression and the separation of religion from government. It really makes me sad.

I agree with Jake N. that it's the right of every state to grant their citizenship however they decide.

In here, nobody cares. The laws grant freedom of religions but it's considered a private matter that shouldn't interfere with whatever might be required by the laws. I hear that the local Jews have issues since the veterinary laws require that the animals be slaughtered in a way that doesn't work for the Jews - although this might have been changed meantime. All state schools are co-ed, the syllabi require, among others, swimming and some sex ed. You can homeschool the kids up to 5th grade but then they have to go to school and nobody cares that you think co-ed schools immodest and I doubt that any school administration would allow anyone to skip sports on the ground of parents thinking it immoral. It may not be perfect but it works somehow.
I don't know exactly how the process of citizenship being granted goes step by step. In the EU countries, one generally has to persuade the officers that their attitude to the country is good, in some cases even that the attachment is stronger than to the country of origin - and by saying I'll do what husband tells me, it will not work anywhere.

Anine commented on July 16, 2008 4:05 AM: "...According to Danish news media the socialworker who investigated the case said that even though the women has lived in France for eight years and speaks the language well, she has completely submitted herself to her spouse and her male relatives. This is based on the fact that she lives in seclusion, completely isolated from the French society. She knows nothing of the secular state or about the right to vote. She finds her secluded way of life completely normal and has never thought to question it or thought that it could be changed, the social worker has stated.

"I would say this case has alot more to do than whether or not she is exercising her religious right. Should the French state condone that women are isolating themselves in their own homes?..."

Also, religion or no religion, submission or no submission, should a state grant citizenship to an adult who still hasn't figured out basic stuff like "here, citizens can vote" after 8 years in the state? Of course, standards like that should still be applied equally to everyone applying for citizenship (instead of, for example, rejecting a reclusive housewife and accepting an equally ignorant bachelor).

kali commented at July 16, 2008 5:26 AM: "The reason for this in my opinion is that multiculturalism has been allowed to completely hijack progressive politics for the last fifteen years or so and in the end it has perverted liberalism by shielding non-Western patriarchal, homophobic and violent cultures and religions from criticism."

Well, it's better to focus on customs because cultures are too nebulous to accurately criticize (what with all the subcultures, ovarlaps with other cultures, and mututally exclusive customs a culture can have). Unfortunately, too often even non-Western patriarchal, homophobic and violent customs get shielded by progressives.

kultakutri commented on July 16, 2008 7:41 AM: "All state schools are co-ed, the syllabi require, among others, swimming and some sex ed. You can homeschool the kids up to 5th grade but then they have to go to school and nobody cares that you think co-ed schools immodest and I doubt that any school administration would allow anyone to skip sports on the ground of parents thinking it immoral."

Just curious, what's the school system's position on kids bullying and/or ostracizing other kids for how they look in swimsuits? When I stopped wearing swimsuits in public, it was far more due to American "it's disgusting, your legs are too ugly" pressures than Iranian "it's immodest, your legs are too sexual" pressures. Meanwhile, my school system didn't take the harassment seriously so I'd have been toast if they ordered me to expose my legs in class.

>>>>The woman here was the antithesis of feminism, she's completely subservient to the males in her household.

>>>Feminism should not be a requirement to live legally and permanently in a country.

the article at the BBC was pretty short, so maybe i'm missing something here, but if everyone is commenting based on just reading that one article, i would just like to point out:

muslim women CAN be feminists, even when it doesn't look like western feminism. these comments are very presumptive and ethnocentric - all feminism doesn't look like western feminism.

abby commented at July 16, 2008 10:09 AM commented at: "muslim women CAN be feminists, even when it doesn't look like western feminism. these comments are very presumptive and ethnocentric - all feminism doesn't look like western feminism."

At the same time, Muslim feminism doesn't look like being oblivious to what's happening outside one's household and neighborhood either.

When one's lived in a nation for years and speaks its lingua franca well, one doesn't need to be westernized/convert to non-Muslim/sell out/etc. in order to learn whether or not adult citizens there can vote.

@ Hille

You say that that Egalite is a contravention of the freedom of religion, but where is the freedom actually lost?

When the state says it isn't appropriate to wear an overt symbol of subservience?

Or when a child is forced into wearing that symbol under duress?

Freedom of religion is one thing, but freedom FROM religion is more important. Especially for children when it's a patriarchal sexist religion like islam, christianity or orthodox judaism.

Let the individual make up their mind without any outside pressure from husbands or parents when they're old enough to, say about the same time they reach the majority and can vote.

abby: "muslim women CAN be feminists, even when it doesn't look like western feminism. these comments are very presumptive and ethnocentric - all feminism doesn't look like western feminism."

Squaring the circle, abby?

By "western feminism" I assume you mean uncompromised egalitarianism in society and equality before the law, regardless of tradition or superstition. Gosh what a wicked "ethnocentric" definition. Makes me feel like Cecil Rhodes.

In Islam women and men may be spiritually equal, but the Qur'an (not tradition, custom, etc. but the explicit basis of their faith) takes a clear 'separate but equal' approach to matters of social conduct (dress, association) and law (punishment, share of inheritance, worth of testimony, whom they can marry).

And 'separate but equal' where have I heard that before?

Akheloios:"Freedom of religion is one thing, but freedom FROM religion is more important. Especially for children when it's a patriarchal sexist religion like islam, christianity or orthodox judaism."

Thank you. Unfortunately stories like this are but the tip of the iceberg. In Italy for example they are struggling with polygamy now. Many Muslim women are being tricked and coerced. Not only is the practice generally exploitative, it's illegal in Italy. I don't understand why people get to immigrate to a country and then break the law upon arrival in the name of multi-culturalism.

There should be zero tolerance for intolerance. I myself am an ethnic minority in my native country and in Italy. But first and foremost I am a woman, a human being. Enough is enough.

kali, spike the cat, THANK YOU. Good to see some other non-compromisers around :-)

Presumably this woman's husband also demonstrates the same values and "failure to assimilate" into French culture and civic life but is nevertheless a French national. Why is he allowed to be a citizen, whether native-born or naturalized? It seems a bit backward to punish a person who adheres to objectional beliefs and practices while rewarding the one who, according to those beliefs and practices, is responsible for enforcing them.

Mina wrote:
Just curious, what's the school system's position on kids bullying and/or ostracizing other kids for how they look in swimsuits? When I stopped wearing swimsuits in public, it was far more due to American "it's disgusting, your legs are too ugly" pressures than Iranian "it's immodest, your legs are too sexual" pressures. Meanwhile, my school system didn't take the harassment seriously so I'd have been toast if they ordered me to expose my legs in class.

Most schools have a policy that discourage and punish bullying because we recognize that the things children say to each other are MEAN. But as much as they may sting, they aren't as meaningful as a moral judgement made by an adult in a position of authority. The difference between a bratty twelve year old saying that your knees are too fat and your pastor/principal/parent telling you that you are a filthy whore because he can see your calves is HUGE!! Even if children follow up their insults with physical aggression, their violence cannot compare with the beating, brandings, burnings, and stonings with which some Muslim fundamentalists reinforce theirs.

mina - i agree with that, thank you. i was really just trying to say that it seemed some people assumed that muslim automatically means the "antithesis" of feminism, which is untrue. but i completely agree with you.

kali - yes, i would still say that your statement seems ethnocentric. i'm not advocating for "separate but equal," but rather to acknowledge real difference and recognize that one can be a feminist while wearing hijab.

Why is he allowed to be a citizen, whether native-born or naturalized?

Because governments generally consider citizenship to people born within their country's borders to be an inherent right, something that cannot be revoked.

And, from what I've been able to find, it seems that Faiza M's husband was born in France. She married him in 2000, and it sure sounds like an arranged/mail order marriage.

This is good news as far as I am concerned. The last thing France needs or any other European country for that matter are more Muslims. Maybe France has finally gotten a backbone and started to stick up for itself by not allowing Muslims in. I doubt it.