Burka woman denied citizenship (FRA

[AapoJoki]

A Moroccan woman has been denied French citizenship on the grounds she is too submissive.

The Council of State ruled that the woman, who is married to a French national, speaks good French and has three children, all born in France, should be denied citizenship because her "radical" practice of Islam is incompatible with French values such as equality of the sexes.

--

I have somewhat mixed feelings about this one. On one hand, it shouldn't be the state's business what she is doing or wearing in her private life. On the other hand, it's important to send out the message that the values she and her behavior represent are not the kind we want in Europe or anywhere else in the civilized world. Like Pat Condell said, if you live in a free, democratic country and still cover your face, you're mentally ill. But perhaps she's not really that free, if it was her husband and male relatives that placed her in that situation, which is why the ruling seems a bit hard on her when these men are getting off the hook.

By the way, how do burka-clad Muslim women get through the border control anyway? Don't they have to uncover their faces and hair when their passports are checked? Do they just go to some booth with a female officer who checks her? It would be awesome if we forced them to show their faces just like everyone else at the border control. It's not discrimination if the law's the same for everyone.

[poxpower]

FUCK YEAH.

Any country should have the right to decide who gets in anyways. They could ban people with mustaches if they wanted.

Anyways, fuck those morons who try to escape their horrible shitstain countries and bring the horrible customs that destroy their country with them. There's tons of muslims that come here just to escape having to be a fucking extremist, they don't want burka-wearing morons making their way into the modern world.

[Alphabit]

I don't mind if they cover their hair only, but iI find it offensive and provocative when I see a fully covered woman in Australia... If they love their culture THAT much, they should probably have stayed where they came from; seriously, if they don't respect western culture, what the hell are they doing in our countries.

In the same way, I'd expect a European woman living in/visiting an Islamic country to cover themselves out of respect. Muslim culture is like communism; it makes nations poor and uncivilized, now, us westerners like to civilized and we don't want these people staining our culture with theirs. If they want to live in a civilized country, they'd have to contribute by living-out a civilized life.

[stafffighter]

At 7/12/08 06:27 AM, Alphabit wrote: If they want to live in a civilized country, they'd have to contribute by living-out a civilized life.

So acting out one of the more stringent rules of your faith is uncivilized? Or is it jsut having extreme faith? Or is it faith in and of itself. I'm just asking where the line is drawn.

[Alphabit]

At 7/12/08 06:37 AM, stafffighter wrote:

At 7/12/08 06:27 AM, Alphabit wrote: If they want to live in a civilized country, they'd have to contribute by living-out a civilized life.

So acting out one of the more stringent rules of your faith is uncivilized? Or is it jsut having extreme faith? Or is it faith in and of itself. I'm just asking where the line is drawn.

I guess praying 5 times a day doesn't really help the economy.
Also, the Muslim ideal that 'this life doesn't matter, it's only to serve Allah' is somewhat incompatible with achieving success in THIS life. It's like saying, today doesn't matter, only tomorrow matters, let's pray so that we can do a good job tomorrow - Europeans like to live today in general (even though many of them believe in an afterlife).

[stafffighter]

At 7/12/08 06:44 AM, Alphabit wrote:

I guess praying 5 times a day doesn't really help the economy.

Neither do smoke breaks

Also, the Muslim ideal that 'this life doesn't matter, it's only to serve Allah' is somewhat incompatible with achieving success in THIS life. It's like saying, today doesn't matter, only tomorrow matters, let's pray so that we can do a good job tomorrow - Europeans like to live today in general (even though many of them believe in an afterlife).

What about the Christian science princible that this body is just a shell? The disregaurd for medical treatment messes up sick days and health insurance. If they allowed themselves to be treated they could put in a lot more productive days.
The simple fact is anyone who's sure enough something comes after is going to care less about what goes on here.

[poxpower]

At 7/12/08 07:18 AM, stafffighter wrote:

What about the Christian science princible that this body is just a shell? The disregaurd for medical treatment messes up sick days and health insurance. If they allowed themselves to be treated they could put in a lot more productive days.

Yeah so why would you want MORE crazy people in a country?

[stafffighter]

The world is full of crazy people and all the stirring in the world isn't going to get them out of the mix.

A thought I had after my giant sized morning coffee. Praying 5 times a day could be good for the economy.
It all works on the same princible as vacations. People don't produce much during vactions but they come back refreshed, not just physically, but mentally. They rejoin the workforce with less baggage and fatigue on their minds that would slow their work. If praying 5 times a day makes people think that they're in good with the man upstairs, or "spiritually refreshed" then that could have a very positive effect on their productivity.

[Drakim]

At 7/12/08 07:52 AM, stafffighter wrote: The world is full of crazy people and all the stirring in the world isn't going to get them out of the mix.

A thought I had after my giant sized morning coffee. Praying 5 times a day could be good for the economy.
It all works on the same princible as vacations. People don't produce much during vactions but they come back refreshed, not just physically, but mentally. They rejoin the workforce with less baggage and fatigue on their minds that would slow their work. If praying 5 times a day makes people think that they're in good with the man upstairs, or "spiritually refreshed" then that could have a very positive effect on their productivity.

As much as that might be true, Islam, and other realigions, but mainly Islam, has a bunch of rules that makes them very unprodutive and not fitting into a working society. For example, Muslim cab drivers refusing to drive dogs, even special trained dogs for blind people, is becoming an increasing problem.

But more, what happens when a Muslim refuses to do some menus in McDonalds because he thinks bacorn (pig) is unclean? As pointed out, when completely veiled women needs to show their face to confirm identity?

Although a lot of religious have a "when in rome do as romans do" kinda attitute, most of Islam agrees that one should only obey the laws of a country if it does not crash with Islamic theology. That means, if the law says one thing, but the Quran another, then you pick the Quran. This is very unfortunate when you considure that Quran orders the death of anybody who deconverters or converts away from Islam, for example.

I'm not saying that one should ban Islam for being unprodutive, (the same logic would apply for handicapped people), but I think such problems should be taken into account when they figure out if a person would fit into society.

[poxpower]

At 7/12/08 07:52 AM, stafffighter wrote: The world is full of crazy people and all the stirring in the world isn't going to get them out of the mix.

So how exactly do you account for the massive drop of animal/food/human sacrifices between now and 2500 years ago?

I mean, same crazy people, right? Shouldn't they still be just as crazy?

Oh wait, guess not. I'd love to live in a world where no woman is forced to dress in any particular way based on pure superstition or male dominance. That's what a burka is: turning a woman into someone's property. It's a sign of inferiority and submission and only a dumb woman who hasn't read her religion would still wear it given that she's now in a free country.

any possible way you look at it, we shouldn't want anyone who comes into a country with a fucking costume, that's retarded. Like those Amish idiots. Or those jews and their hats.

We make fun of teenagers for conforming to stupid fads but now we should respect grown adults who do the same shit?

hell no, get the hell out of here.

[AapoJoki]

At 7/12/08 06:37 AM, stafffighter wrote: I'm just asking where the line is drawn.

The line is drawn where your religious customs are a danger to others or yourself, or when it severely harms your ability to interact normally in a society. I don't think that religious customs should be banned because they are religious. All customs that greatly impede the functioning of a civilized society should be disallowed, whether they are religious or not.

At 7/12/08 07:52 AM, stafffighter wrote: It all works on the same princible as vacations. People don't produce much during vactions but they come back refreshed, not just physically, but mentally. They rejoin the workforce with less baggage and fatigue on their minds that would slow their work. If praying 5 times a day makes people think that they're in good with the man upstairs, or "spiritually refreshed" then that could have a very positive effect on their productivity.

Fine. Just make sure that whenever the Muslim employee is taking a break to pray, everyone else gets a break too and can do whatever they want. Give people as many unearned breaks and vacations as you want, as long as everyone gets the same benefits regardless of their religion. You shouldn't get any privileges for your religion.

If everyone else manages to be productive in the workplace without taking excessive breaks, why should someone else get more of them? Should there be individually customized break schedules for everyone according to their liking or habits, to optimize their productivity?

On another note, I would feel tempted to support some totally useless laws that no normal person would give a shit about, but would cause a deep disturbance among people with religious convictions. For instance, let's say the one day the Finnish parliament decides that henceforth the national animal of Finland is pig. Additionally, every school kid must have a sticker of a smiling pig face attached to their schoolbags. Naturally, all Muslims in the country would be offended. But they have no grounds to cry discrimination!

If we forced only children of Muslim parents to wear such stickers, THEN it would be discrimination. But how could it be discrimination when the law is the same for everyone? It would just be a stupid law, nothing more.

[Drakim]

At 7/12/08 08:20 AM, AapoJoki wrote: If we forced only children of Muslim parents to wear such stickers, THEN it would be discrimination. But how could it be discrimination when the law is the same for everyone? It would just be a stupid law, nothing more.

Well, I could see how it would be bad if Finland made everybody shout "ALLAH IS EVIL" every hour, even if everybody had to do it (not just Muslims). But it's simply a case of common sense for the issue at hand. Despite what Muslims think, there is nothing wrong with pigs, and having it as a national animal is perfectly fine.

[stafffighter]

At 7/12/08 08:20 AM, AapoJoki wrote:

Fine. Just make sure that whenever the Muslim employee is taking a break to pray, everyone else gets a break too and can do whatever they want. Give people as many unearned breaks and vacations as you want, as long as everyone gets the same benefits regardless of their religion. You shouldn't get any privileges for your religion.

What if she worked during Christmas vacation to even it out? Would that work for you?

[AapoJoki]

At 7/12/08 10:17 AM, stafffighter wrote: What if she worked during Christmas vacation to even it out? Would that work for you?

Sure, why not. As long as everyone gets the same amount of free time and the timing is convenient for the employer. Or the Muslim employee can work for extra 30-60 minutes each day, depending on how long the prayers take.

But it still sounds like an annoying "special arrangement". In principle, "special needs" shouldn't have to be accommodated if those "special needs" are based on religion. The Muslim employee has no valid reason not to work on the same hours as everyone else. It should be completely at the employer's discretion to decide whether to make special free time schedules or not. But one thing that should be protected by the LAW is that every non-religious employee has the right to the same amount of free time as every religious employee.

[stafffighter]

At 7/12/08 10:40 AM, AapoJoki wrote:
But it still sounds like an annoying "special arrangement". In principle, "special needs" shouldn't have to be accommodated if those "special needs" are based on religion. The Muslim employee has no valid reason not to work on the same hours as everyone else. It should be completely at the employer's discretion to decide whether to make special free time schedules or not. But one thing that should be protected by the LAW is that every non-religious employee has the right to the same amount of free time as every religious employee.

Ok, should i get smoking breaks even though i don't smoke? Should I get maternaty leave even though i don't have kids and am a dude? Should I get time off because my military service has been reactivated even though I'm not in the military? How dare people claim to have personal needs that are not relatable to my own!

[AapoJoki]

At 7/12/08 12:02 PM, stafffighter wrote: Ok, should i get smoking breaks even though i don't smoke?

I don't think you should get smoking breaks even if you do smoke.

Should I get maternaty leave even though i don't have kids and am a dude? Should I get time off because my military service has been reactivated even though I'm not in the military? How dare people claim to have personal needs that are not relatable to my own!

See, those are real things. They are valid reasons to take time off. Religion, however, is a completely made up reason. It deserves no privileges whatsoever and it should never qualify as a "personal need" that entitles you to skip work. Giving time off for religion is the same as giving time off for no reason at all.

If religion qualifies as a valid reason to gain special privileges at the workplace or anywhere else, then I'm going to start a new religion: my Holy Book says that I can only work one hour in a week and this rule must be obeyed no matter what. I'd like to help out the boss more, but I don't want to go to Hell. If my boss doesn't give me the time off, then he's an intolerant bigot who doesn't understand other cultures.

[lapis]

France is a country with a strong secular tradition, for example in the French language one word for religious fundamentalism is intégrisme, the desire to integrate religion with politics and the state (it's somewhat ironic that it's Sarkozy who's the first French president to encroach upon that strict separation of Church and State, not only because of his speeches but also because of him saying that that it was "a mistake" to withdraw the reference to "Europe's Christian roots" from the European Constitution). Inequality of the sexes, the main argument mentioned by the French Council of State, flows naturally from the scriptures of the Abrahamic religions, certainly in this case, and this is what could have been a motivating factor for the council - her clothes were such a public sign of appreciation for the "dark' parts of organised religion, ie the parts that conflict with modern Humanist principles, that they'd rather not have her gain voting rights in the country at all. And the council (and by implication, a majority of the people of France) has the full right to ban whosoever they consider to disagree with their fundamental principles from obtaining citizenship. Wearing face-covering clothes is as of an indication for intégrisme as a swastika tattooed on the forearm is an indication of Nazi sympathies - but the fact that the couple ackowledged they were Salafists probably aided the diagnosis as well.

By the way, that news.scotsman.com was probably wrong in asserting that the woman wore a burqa`, going by the notion in that article that her clothing "covers her body from head to foot, leaving a narrow slit for her eyes." I think she wears a niqâb.

At 7/12/08 08:05 AM, Drakim wrote: This is very unfortunate when you considure that Quran orders the death of anybody who deconverters or converts away from Islam, for example.

While there is indeed friction between Western, man-made law and sharia` this statement is technically incorrect, it's part of the Sunna that could be interpreted as saying that anybody who converts from Islam to another religion should be killed, not the Qur'an. Instead of asking you to cite me a Qur'anic verse that says this I might as well mention this fatwa right away, and then specifically the sentence: It is not right to deny the punishment of apostasy claiming that it has not been reported in the Qur'an, because it has been recorded in the mutawatir (Hadith which has been reported by at least four of the Companions in different times and places in a way that make a person sure that such Hadith is not fabricated) and the non-mutawatir Sunnah of the Prophet (peace and blessing be upon him).

What the issuer of the fatwa doesn't mention is that there's of course discussion about this issue among scholars, but the funny thing is that when scholars think it should in most cases be okay they usually cite the Qur'an, mainly verse 18:29 and 2:256, and also 109:6.

[Diederick]

If you want to push through globalization and individualism you are correct that no country should have anything to do with what this woman wears. Fortunately this is not the case, because people hold on to culture, which is more or less the opposite of individuality.

I believe it is a good thing that France wants to protect her people from extreme lifestyles such as the Islamic. Freedom of religion is generally a good thing (though it might as well not exist for all I care), as long as that religion doesn't obstruct other freedoms. There are more important things in life that need to be protected before the freedom of practising a practically irrelevant belief.

France is only doing what she feels is best for her inhabitants. Protecting people from themselves is very much necessary and this includes protection from sects.

[Diederick]

At 7/12/08 12:02 PM, stafffighter wrote:

At 7/12/08 10:40 AM, AapoJoki wrote:
But it still sounds like an annoying "special arrangement". In principle, "special needs" shouldn't have to be accommodated if those "special needs" are based on religion. The Muslim employee has no valid reason not to work on the same hours as everyone else. It should be completely at the employer's discretion to decide whether to make special free time schedules or not. But one thing that should be protected by the LAW is that every non-religious employee has the right to the same amount of free time as every religious employee.

Ok, should i get smoking breaks even though i don't smoke? Should I get maternaty leave even though i don't have kids and am a dude? Should I get time off because my military service has been reactivated even though I'm not in the military? How dare people claim to have personal needs that are not relatable to my own!

I'm sorry, but I really am having trouble understanding what you're trying to say here. AapoJoki has a perfect secular answer and you fight it with this folly?
Religion is completely useless in today's society, and only limits the freedoms of people. The only reason these sects are still allowed is because there are so many of them that democratic ways of removing religion from the face of this planet are bound to failure and might even cause the opposite from what we aim for. But it is only a matter of time before humanity gets more sense than giving in to the placebo effect of a Higher Power. Get real, people.

[Memorize]

Since when did the left-wing countries who complain about the US and how it deals with illegal immigration, suddenly become anti-immigration altogether?

Too submissive?

Does she want to be "submissive"?
Is she abused?
Does she want to wear that article of clothing?
Is she an extremist?

They had a friggin' pathetic excuse for denying her citizenship.

[Memorize]

At 7/12/08 01:09 PM, Diederick wrote:

Religion is completely useless in today's society, and only limits the freedoms of people.

So we're going to deny people citizenship and freedom because they're religious?

What?

[AapoJoki]

At 7/12/08 02:02 PM, Memorize wrote: Too submissive?

Does she want to be "submissive"?
Is she abused?
Does she want to wear that article of clothing?
Is she an extremist?

That's what I'm worried about too. I don't think she wears it out of fear of God as much as she wears it out of fear of honor violence. I don't see how "submission" can be someone's "lifestyle". It's something you're forced to.

The ruling was clearly a punishment to her, when it's probably the men in her family, presumably French citizens who are doing it to her. If that is the case, then they should be put under restraining order. However, it would also be difficult for the woman to adapt to a normal French life, without going through years of therapy first.

[stafffighter]

At 7/12/08 02:12 PM, AapoJoki wrote:
The ruling was clearly a punishment to her, when it's probably the men in her family, presumably French citizens who are doing it to her.

Seeing as she's in this situation because she married a French citizen, yeah, safe assumption. Does any of your argument not revolve around a gripe with religion?

[zoolrule]

They can choose who they want in their country, who are you to judge?

[Drakim]

At 7/12/08 02:02 PM, Memorize wrote: Since when did the left-wing countries who complain about the US and how it deals with illegal immigration, suddenly become anti-immigration altogether?

Sigh, since you started lumping everybody together? There are more positions in the world than "Left" and "Right".

Too submissive?

Does she want to be "submissive"?
Is she abused?
Does she want to wear that article of clothing?
Is she an extremist?

They had a friggin' pathetic excuse for denying her citizenship.

And? What world order law says that you have to have an excuse for denying citizenship? You can deny citizenship because somebody has red hair if you want. The hole point of a democracy is that the people can decide how the country is run, including who you will let into the country. I'm not saying that makes you above criticism, indeed not, I would definitely hope such a decision is criticized, but there is no world police that overrules democracy, I'm afraid.

[stafffighter]

At 7/12/08 03:55 PM, Drakim wrote: The hole point of a democracy is that the people can decide how the country is run, including who you will let into the country. I'm not saying that makes you above criticism, indeed not, I would definitely hope such a decision is criticized, but there is no world police that overrules democracy, I'm afraid.

I hear that all the U.N does is play beer pong until sunset. And now to pad my post for an acceptable amount of quoted content.......done.

[Drakim]

At 7/12/08 04:02 PM, stafffighter wrote: I hear that all the U.N does is play beer pong until sunset. And now to pad my post for an acceptable amount of quoted content.......done.

Yes, and the U.N is controlled how? Dictatorship?

[uhnoesanoob]

At 7/12/08 03:20 PM, zoolrule wrote: They can choose who they want in their country, who are you to judge?

Be honest, if the person was a Jew, and was denied citizenship, you would feel a bit differently. And also, we CAN judge the French, as they are quite merciless when it comes to bashing the US's policy on immigrants. Also, Memorize makes a good point, its kinda clear the men in the family are doing SOMETHING to make her submissive, people are not submissive by nature.

[LordJaric]

At 7/12/08 06:27 AM, Alphabit wrote: if they don't respect western culture, what the hell are they doing in our countries.

I thought western culture was based on freedom.

[CIX]

So are Muslims the new Jews in Europe?