French citizenship : Only if your wife isn't veiled

[nothingofthesort]

I can't figure out what to make of this. Men shouldn't get a say in how their wives dress isn't it? Doesn't this encourage the opposite?

Wives walking behind husbands may signify something 'offensive', but it is not against the law in this country; no-one who partakes in this custom is rejecting our legal system, no matter how strongly you disagree with it.

Well put Fembear.
Cuts to crux of the issue.

Teether, Im no longer in Europe.

Am in the far East totally immersed, humbled and diluted in the multitude of chinese dominant culture.
This has given me a fresh perspective on being a minority, namely a white caucasian minority (irony!) that has to abide by an alien dominant "indigenous" culture.

So it is now very interesting for me to read these posts from this standpoint.

Truly humbling being part of a minority, and an eye opener.

before that north london 10 years and before that Paris 10 years with a few years in amsterdam and Milan.

So have a pretty clear perspective of what it feels like being a muslim in a Europe.
Hope you are satisfied with the credentials?

Thanks slim; I was just curious because your assertion that second and third generation muslims do not want to integrate contradicts my own experience. I live in a very muslim area in East london, have lived in London all my life and have never experienced this.

I was not trying to value your credentials based on where you live, I just know that situations are different in different parts of the country, and indeed, the world. I was interested to know if your opinions were driven by your experiences.

I am also quite jealous that you have lived in so many places

I have lived in France too and found it to be, in parts, very racist.

Their rationale for outlawing the veil is because they consider it oppressive and "un- French". In my opinion it is the hallmark of oppression to dictate what people wear and how they should behave in order to live in a particular place. Rather contradictory, n'est pas?

Exactement, cumbria...

Riven, I am now imagining a society in which walking behind your husband is an arrestable offence- for him. How would that be policed? The mind boggles. There would be a lot of furtive looking couples around walking very slowly.

Imagine, every time you stopped to look in a shop window, he gets nicked. Although it would be good when arguing; simply drop your pace and hey presto, he's in the slammer

Not to mention all the innocent strangers ambling along 10 paces in front of you... Oxford st would be a nightmare...

Forcing or insisting that your wife wears a religious symbol, or clothing that is in accord with a strict interpretation of your holy book is an act in direct opposition to the French values of liberty, equality and fraternity. It is also in contravention of the French value of gender equality.

"The Egyptian men you encountered behaved so disrespectfully- does this mean they are upholding "Egyptian values"? If they are, shouldn't those values be challenged in some way?" If these Egyptian men lived in France, and behaved this way, French law would apply to them.

"Fifty years ago, this debate could have been happening about Sikh turbans. It isn't. Is that because they cover a different part of the head, or because we have moved on and accepted them as part of our society, reflecting our norms and values? Why haven't the French?" This isn't about which part of the head is covered, it is about whose head is covered, and under what circumstances the decision to cover that head is made. It is also about the symbolism of the covered head, what it represents in terms of engagement with French society and the embracing of the French value f equality for the women whose heads are covered.

"No-one has mentioned up until now that France saw fit to colonise much of muslim North Africa- France is the 'mother country' to many. I think this is worth bearing in mind when discussing 'French values'." So are the muslims who choose to wear the veil now doing some sort of reverse colonisation as revenge? Is this therefore an attack on French values?

Camaleon, very good points.

They are not covered up at the behest of their husbands. This is the difference.

mathanxiety, you have misunderstood every one of my points. I am getting really tired of explaining them over and over again.

"If these Egyptian men lived in France, and behaved this way, French law would apply to them."

This is blindingly obvious, and not at all pertinent to my quote.
The point was that a nation's-any nation's- values are not sacrosanct, and that accepting those so-called values without criticism is blinkered.

"This isn't about which part of the head is covered, it is about whose head is covered, and under what circumstances the decision to cover that head is made"

The proposed legislation only deals with the wearing of the niqab- it makes no allowance for any of the reasons you state. It is solely about which part of the head is covered.

Just out of interest, do you object to the wearing of the sikh turban at all? At one time, the wearing of one was considered an affront to "English values"

"It is also about the symbolism of the covered head, what it represents in terms of engagement with French society and the embracing of the French value f equality for the women whose heads are covered"

How do those women seeking citizenship experience French equality if they are told what to wear by the state? French citizens aren't; they are (currently) allowed to wear what they please. Or does equality only extend to those of a catholic or secular persuasion? Are some more equal than others?

"So are the muslims who choose to wear the veil now doing some sort of reverse colonisation as revenge? Is this therefore an attack on French values?"

Are you serious? You got that from "No-one has mentioned up until now that France saw fit to colonise much of muslim North Africa- France is the 'mother country' to many. I think this is worth bearing in mind when discussing 'French values'."? Baffling.

Is it not possible that muslim culture is part of French culture and its values, quite probably as a direct consequence of colonisation on the part of the French?

Edam - there is an assumption that women who cover their faces are also walking 10 (why 10 - did someone bother to count) paces behind men.

I very much feel that people dare not express their fear or discomfort of Islam directly and instead express it as a concern for women. I don't know a whole heap about the religion but from what I glean from alot of religions is that there is plenty of room for the subordination of women.Same with secular life.

I'm married to an EU citizen - I'm not in a great place right now but when I've ever told anyone about my situation they've assumed that my dh is a muslim which I find quite odd - he's not - he's a staunch Christian and he'd have me walking 10 paces behind him struggling with heavy bags anytime and just exist to serve him and have no voice.

I therefore feel that the lack of respect for women is not the preserve of one culture or religion only and to focus on the veil is a bit of a red herring.

The French must do what they feel is right, of course, but I would say that women's emancipation does not come from the state telling women what they can and cannot wear.

A nation's values are sacrosanct to that particular nation, tethers. My point is that France has a right to expect citizens or residents (Egyptian men residing in France, for example) to comply with her laws and integrate with her mores/ culture.

"It is solely about which part of the head is covered." No, the proposal is about who decides whose head is covered and to what extent the head is covered, and who makes that decision.

How does a woman experience French equality, and how does her husband experience French equality, if the husband may dictate to his wife that her head be covered? The French government is right to try to educate men as to how they may treat their wives, if they come from a country or have a culture that makes women second-class citizens, essentially chattel, and if they want to live as citizens of France.

Regarding the sikh turban, this is a decision made by men regarding their own headgear. Sikh men do not impose any rigid rules on sikh women regarding their attire, AFAIK. If they did, then I would be appalled and would consider it un-British, and expect them to change if they wanted to live in Britain.

It is preposterous to propose that muslim culture is part of French culture. The foods and music and other trappings of regions where islam is practiced may have become part of French life, but culture and values are different from those details.

Sorry to make you sigh, tethers.

Riven: the majority of muslim women in Europe wear hijab or niqab because they want too. None of my friends who wear either have been made too.

Slim22: I hail from an Arab muslim country, have family and friends in all muslim countries from the Atlantic to Indonesia encompassing all rites and nuances of Islamic culture. No woman wears the veil willingly let alone the burka/Niqab. Many women have made peace with this, only because they have no choice.

So European women are actively choosing to wear the symbol of their sisters' oppression? That's nice.

"How does a woman experience French equality, and how does her husband experience French equality, if the husband may dictate to his wife that her head be covered? The French government is right to try to educate men as to how they may treat their wives, if they come from a country or have a culture that makes women second-class citizens, essentially chattel, and if they want to live as citizens of France."

Thing is, mathanxiety, I totally agree with you on this point.

I just disagree that the way to address this is by denying citizenship to the husbands of those who wear the niqab- if they are oppressing their wives, the removal of the niqab will not stop this, it will merely remove the signifier of it, and some people may feel more comfortable seeing them in the street. If the husband beats and rapes his wife, he is likely to continue to do so. He will also be able to claim that the state is oppressing him and his wife. Because they would be.

The policy could and should deal with the dictation and oppression by the husband, rather than the niqab itself. It doesn't.

"A nation's values are sacrosanct to that particular nation, tethers."

Perhaps, but this does not make them beyond criticism. Otherwise there would be no wars (apart from oil-based ones of course). What about the Nazis who claimed everything they did was in the name of 'German values'? Are those values possibly subjective and open to interpretation and perversion?
(and Christ on a bike, I am NOT comparing France to Nazi Germany)
What about those nationals who disagree with a particular value? Do they see them as sacrosanct?

Values are created by societies and develop over time. They are not set in stone.

"It is preposterous to propose that muslim culture is part of French culture."

Well, on this we just plain disagree. Is it as 'preposterous' to suggest that any religion is part of French culture? Or just Islam?

FWIW, you speak a lot of sense on other threads. I think that's why I'm sighing...

Fembear - I take your point about women taking on the the burka where you feel it's oppression -but not assume it's only european woman choosing to do so.

I see oppression all around me - my almost middle aged bulimic sil who weighs herself a couple of times a day, my bf who's having needles in her face to make her look younger and fit in - girls wanting boob jobs - the works.

Repression takes different forms.

Nobody is trying to stifle debate. France is not an authoritarian dictatorship. The values of a country are not beyond criticism. Nazi values were held dear by many Germans. There are some who still see little wrong with them. Doesn't make them right and doesn't mean they can't be challenged. Postwar German society has repudiated those values, however, and part and parcel of the mechanics of that repudiation is singling out Nazi symbols as repugnant to the ideals and values of the citizens of Germany.

So no, values are not set in stone. Cataclysmic events like comprehensive defeat in war, or trends such as immigration of large numbers of people whose values are different in significant respects from those of the rest of the population can change those values, or serve to clarify values, or prompt questions as to the nature of those values or what exactly 'nationality', 'citizenship', or 'national values' mean. There has been no shortage of this kind of questioning in Germany, and now France is tackling the same sort of issues in her own way.

I am sure there are many French women who are oppressed by their husbands, niqab or no niqab. It is unacceptable, according to French law. The proposed legislation does not state that this is the only sort of oppression of women by men that France will not countenance. The niqab is a highly visible symbol of male oppression in French eyes it is a symbol of a man's right to rule his family without reference to the laws of the land.

France, while historically Christian, is now determined to be a secular state. This is a trend that has been developing since the Revolution. There have been other times where the outcome of the struggle for secularism has been far from clear (Third Republic, for example), but secularism has broad general appeal these days. France is engaged in a process of defining the extent of this secularism, defining citizenship, defining 'Frenchness' in a democratic way. This is their fifth attempt to 'get it right' so to speak, as a republic, and they have dallied with empire and emperors too, -- it is clearly a nation that is committed to asking questions and drawing lines, shaping and reshaping its own concept of itself. National self-definition involves debate over national values.

Good post, mathanxiety. On many issues, we are agreed.

"it is a symbol of a man's right to rule his family without reference to the laws of the land."

In the same way that banning the swastika and seig heilling has not ended (Neo-)nazism in Germany, the banning of the niqab will not end this oppression. I disagree with both the German and the proposed French legislation.

The proposed legislation smacks of "Oi, that's wrong, you can't tell your wife what to do this is France- France will tell your wife what to do" It doesn't resonate with me as legislation which will further the rights of oppressed women...

I agree these measures do not change people, or women inequality intrinsic to some (if not all) religions.

However, since the swastika symbol has been mentioned, the law sends the message that it is wrong to be a racist, which I consider quite a good option.

I believe Europe has to start realizing that they are not only Christians, and that their identity includes, among others, muslims. People should also be aware they are standing up for some specific values, that are not always universal nor neutral, as they pretend to be. Imposing the kind of laws we are speaking about means imposing a view of the world to others. Obviously, the view of some perceived majority over minorities.

I feel the treatment of hijab in France and Turkey in public school is wrong. I cannot see how a piece of clothe over someone's head can bother anybody, and then jewish women wigs (since are not visible and accommodate well, despite being the symbol of the same kind of issues) are never under scrutiny.

However, I also understand how some burden can be put on wearing burkas.

Riven, I would really like to know where in Spain you have seen older people in black and with covered heads. Some very, very old ladies may still do that for church. It was normal before. You will hardly see a picture of Virgin Mary with her hair uncovered (until recent paintings of course)

tethersjinglebellend, The law is trying to tell men it is wrong to tell your wife what to wear. I think there is a difference. The state tells us many things about wrong and right. We do not always agree