Submissive Muslim Denied French Citizenship

[Rye]

I don't really have a problem with a state rejecting someone who doesn't even comprehend equality of the sexes, secular society or voting. She may be a bit fucked up, but if she's fully aware of the situation and chooses to be a submissive recluse, I'm not sure why that should be justification for deportation. If she's not even aware of the legal foundations of the nation she wants to get in (or from the sounds of it, the nation her male relatives want her in), though, and doesn't want to learn it, they've every right to throw her out. You'd expect something similar if a load of nudists went to Iran or Saudi.

[Kane Starkiller]

That's why we call Iran and Saudi Arabia religious shitholes. France, on the other hand, is supposed to be an advanced democracy.

[Kanastrous]

I'm torn between my desire to see life made as unpleasant as possible for religious practitioners, and my hope that open democracies will continue treating their citizens like they live in open democracies...

[The Duchess of Zeon]

That's why we call Iran and Saudi Arabia religious shitholes. France, on the other hand, is supposed to be an advanced democracy.

It is. You cannot have a functional democracy unless everyone agrees to a few basic preconditions and concepts, and she doesn't.

[Kanastrous]

That's why we call Iran and Saudi Arabia religious shitholes. France, on the other hand, is supposed to be an advanced democracy.

It is. You cannot have a functional democracy unless everyone agrees to a few basic preconditions and concepts, and she doesn't.

If she were a French Catholic who spoke French, violated no laws, but chose to live at home under the direction of male relatives, would you say the same?

Plenty of people in any given democracy don't vote. Plenty of people in any given democracy choose to live according to standards which I wouldn't tolerate, but which don't actually interfere with me, in any way such that those people should lose citizenship.

Yes, how she's chosen to live is revolting, especially within a free society and yes, she is not exemplifying Frech revolutionary ideals like liberty and equality (although given her background, she might very well share French virtues like Jew-hatred - small common ground, but every little bit helps). And yes, I like to see religious people suffer for the practice of their faith, just as much or maybe more than the next person.

But none of this rises to the level of her posing a threat to the state, or having failed in some essential area of citizenship. If she goes, consistency calls for rounding up all of the faithful agorophobe women who leave decisions to the menfolk - and I bet she's not the only Muslim in France who fits that description, not is she lacking for company among non-Muslims, either.

[Kane Starkiller]

It is. You cannot have a functional democracy unless everyone agrees to a few basic preconditions and concepts, and she doesn't.

Actually the point of democracy is no one has to agree to a goddamn thing. They only have to follow the laws. Did she break any laws? No.

[Rye]

If she were a French Catholic who spoke French, violated no laws, but chose to live at home under the direction of male relatives, would you say the same?

If she was immigrating? Uh, yeah? Why do you think she should be allowed to stay when she doesn't even care about the society's she's coming to beyond being batty in some attic somewhere?

Plenty of people in any given democracy don't vote.

How many of them don't grasp the principle of voting, even if they don't want to vote?

Yes, how she's chosen to live is revolting, especially within a free society and yes, she is not exemplifying Frech revolutionary ideals like liberty and equality (although given her background, she might very well share French virtues like Jew-hatred - small common ground, but every little bit helps). And yes, I like to see religious people suffer for the practice of their faith, just as much or maybe more than the next person.

But none of this rises to the level of her posing a threat to the state, or having failed in some essential area of citizenship.

How is she going to pass a citizenship test as an immigrant if she has no concept of equality, secular government or anything else?

If she goes, consistency calls for rounding up all of the faithful agorophobe women who leave decisions to the menfolk - and I bet she's not the only Muslim in France who fits that description, not is she lacking for company among non-Muslims, either.

Consistency calls that you treat all the immigrants who want to stay there like that, yes. That is not a bad thing. To be honest, it wouldn't be a particularly bad thing if you could do that to everyone of sound mind, except you can't palm off natives to other countries.

[Kane Starkiller]

If she was immigrating? Uh, yeah? Why do you think she should be allowed to stay when she doesn't even care about the society's she's coming to beyond being batty in some attic somewhere?

Maybe because she has three children born in France and a husband who is a French national which seems a tad more important than this subjective "caring" about the society.

[hongi]

Plenty of people in any given democracy don't vote.

How many of them don't grasp the principle of voting, even if they don't want to vote?

Just inform her that she has a right to vote.

[Kanastrous]

If she were a French Catholic who spoke French, violated no laws, but chose to live at home under the direction of male relatives, would you say the same?

If she was immigrating? Uh, yeah? Why do you think she should be allowed to stay when she doesn't even care about the society's she's coming to beyond being batty in some attic somewhere?

e stating that the same behavior that would be acceptable from a born ctizien, would be unacceptable from an immigrant. Meaning that it's not really about the behavior; it's about someone's status as an immigrant.

If she's not breaking the law, why shouldn't she be accomodated? Societies define their accepted behaviors and practices via the law. Unless you're breaking them, what business do your neighbors or government have deciding that your personal habits are their purview?

And I don't think anyone has demonstrated that she 'doesn't even care about the society.' Is that what all immigrants must do, dance to some particular tune that assures everyone else that they're 'caring' enough? Someone who follows the law of the land, is as caring as the next person if we're talking about how good a citizen someone might make.

How many of them don't grasp the principle of voting, even if they don't want to vote?

I'm not sure about France, but in the United States - a lot of them.

How is she going to pass a citizenship test as an immigrant if she has no concept of equality, secular government or anything else?

Same way most people do it: memorize a long list of answers and hope the questions they ask you, match at least part of the list.

Consistency calls that you treat all the immigrants who want to stay there like that, yes. That is not a bad thing.

But why should natural-born citizens be judged any differently? If people who are basically nonparticipatory are undesirable, they remain undesirable regardless of origin. Aside from the practical challenges in deporting natural-born citizens, I don't see any ethical reason to treat them differebtly than nonparticipatory immigrants.

To be honest, it wouldn't be a particularly bad thing if you could do that to everyone of sound mind, except you can't palm off natives to other countries.

I kind of agree, but since we also agree that it's impractical, I think it unfair to tolerate natural-borns who are nonparticipatory but law-abiding, while rejecting resident immigrants whose behavior is similar.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

If she were a French Catholic who spoke French, violated no laws, but chose to live at home under the direction of male relatives, would you say the same?

Absolutely, and the French State agreed with me--that's why it's repeatedly tried to wipe out Catholicism in France, viz. Anti-Clericalism in the late 19th century. That is the influence behind these measures. That they were imperfect does not make their intent different.

Plenty of people in any given democracy don't vote. Plenty of people in any given democracy choose to live according to standards which I wouldn't tolerate, but which don't actually interfere with me, in any way such that those people should lose citizenship.

I don't vote either, but I acknowledge I'm fundamentally incompatible with democracy.

Yes, how she's chosen to live is revolting, especially within a free society and yes, she is not exemplifying Frech revolutionary ideals like liberty and equality (although given her background, she might very well share French virtues like Jew-hatred - small common ground, but every little bit helps). And yes, I like to see religious people suffer for the practice of their faith, just as much or maybe more than the next person.

But none of this rises to the level of her posing a threat to the state, or having failed in some essential area of citizenship. If she goes, consistency calls for rounding up all of the faithful agorophobe women who leave decisions to the menfolk - and I bet she's not the only Muslim in France who fits that description, not is she lacking for company among non-Muslims, either.

On the contrary, lacite demands this, and the history of the French state shows that it has, in fact, been practiced against white Christians.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Actually the point of democracy is no one has to agree to a goddamn thing. They only have to follow the laws. Did she break any laws? No.

The fundamental guiding principle of the French state is secularism, and you are ignoring the fact that democracy requires a base set of assumptions to function--these assumptions are necessary to create a coherent body politic. If you do not agree with the framework of the democratic state, you are, by definition, hindering its function--unlike a Monarchy, where the personal opinions of the population are irrelevant, in a democracy they are the currency of government.

And certainly the same applies to me as much as her--I wouldn't deserve French citizenship holding the current views that I do, t would be iminicable to the State.

[Kanastrous]

If she were a French Catholic who spoke French, violated no laws, but chose to live at home under the direction of male relatives, would you say the same?

Absolutely, and the French State agreed with me--that's why it's repeatedly tried to wipe out Catholicism in France, viz. Anti-Clericalism in the late 19th century. That is the influence behind these measures. That they were imperfect does not make their intent different.

What about the fundamental incompatability between legally assuring protection of religious freedom, and rejecting people because you don't care for how they exercise it, within the confines of their own homes? Where is the difference in principle, between telling someone that they have to stay at home and wear a veil, and telling them that they can't stay at home, and wear a veil?

If the French government were telling members of other sects that their private behavior at home made them undesirables, at least they would be displaying the same degree of consistency that you do. But this appears to be very specifically aimed at one faith-group, rather than at all faith groups, as we probably agree it should be.

Plenty of people in any given democracy don't vote. Plenty of people in any given democracy choose to live according to standards which I wouldn't tolerate, but which don't actually interfere with me, in any way such that those people should lose citizenship.

I don't vote either, but I acknowledge I'm fundamentally incompatible with democracy.

Is it the choice to refrain from voting that makes you incompatible with democracy? I assume that you have additional things in mind, that underwrite that incompatability. Setting your personal practice aside for a moment, would you agree that non-voters in general are not necessarily anti-democratic just because they don't bother to participate?

On the contrary, lacite demands this, and the history of the French state shows that it has, in fact, been practiced against white Christians.

Aside from meaning "the City," I have been unable to find details on what a lacite policy or philosophy might be. Please elaborate...?

Is the modern French state pursuing identical policies against white Christians, right now, that match what they're proposing regarding stay-at-home Muslims?

[LadyTevar]

Oh shit they got Lus!

Do the French also refuse citizenship to women heavily into sadomasochism and bondage?

I was just thinking about that.....what is the difference between the S&M submissive and a religious submissive

For one thing, the former gets a lot more enjoyment out of the experience.

Not always.

[Kanastrous]

The fundamental guiding principle of the French state is secularism,

Emphasis added.

I agree that this makes sense in the context of a school, or a public workplace, or government office, or any turf that is the government's responsibility to finance and administer.

I don't believe that the state's power to mandate secularism should extend into people's private homes, any more than I would find it proper for a state to mandate the practice of a given religion, inside people's provate homes.

[Siege]

Aside from meaning "the City," I have been unable to find details on what a lacite policy or philosophy might be. Please elaborate...?

The Duchess most likely meant to refer to laïcité, the principle that forbids the French government from recognizing any religion.

In terms of the subject at hand, whilst the French state is increasingly secular and in fact hostile toward religion, the French bureaucratic apparatus also has a reputation for discrimination against North Africans (of whom many are Muslim). So I'm not altogether sure this is a matter of religion - that may just be something a bigoted bureaucrat seized upon in order to refuse this woman citizenship.

[Stark]

It is. You cannot have a functional democracy unless everyone agrees to a few basic preconditions and concepts, and she doesn't.

You can't have a healthy democracy without an educated, informed population. I don't see bogans being refused the franchise.

[Rye]

stating that the same behavior that would be acceptable from a born ctizien, would be unacceptable from an immigrant. Meaning that it's not really about the behavior; it's about someone's status as an immigrant.

What's so bad about that? You oppose citizenship tests that the average ignorant pleb with no interest in his own country can't pass because you want to be fair to foreign ignorant plebs that want in? Why the fuck would you want to do that?

If she's not breaking the law, why shouldn't she be accomodated?

Because countries are allowed to have standards on who comes in.

Societies define their accepted behaviors and practices via the law. Unless you're breaking them, what business do your neighbors or government have deciding that your personal habits are their purview?

If they're deciding whether you're deserving of citizenship in their nation.

And I don't think anyone has demonstrated that she 'doesn't even care about the society.' Is that what all immigrants must do, dance to some particular tune that assures everyone else that they're 'caring' enough?

No, they're supposed to know the fundamentals of the society they want to settle in.

Someone who follows the law of the land, is as caring as the next person if we're talking about how good a citizen someone might make.

So countries have no recourse in taking people who refuse to work and reject society as a whole because they'll "follow the rules" in general?

I'm not sure about France, but in the United States - a lot of them.

Americans that don't vote don't understand the concept behind voting? Can you prove it?

Same way most people do it: memorize a long list of answers and hope the questions they ask you, match at least part of the list.

Do you not have a fundamental problem with people being required to learn anything before being allowed to stay?

But why should natural-born citizens be judged any differently?

Pragmatism. Having people with TB in your country doesn't mean you should let more people with TB in.

I kind of agree, but since we also agree that it's impractical, I think it unfair to tolerate natural-borns who are nonparticipatory but law-abiding, while rejecting resident immigrants whose behavior is similar.

Except it's not impractical when dealing with immigrants. "Fairness" is all well and good, but it doesn't mean anyone who has as much to offer as the least useful member of your existing society has an automatic right to move in.

[Darth Wong]

I don't really have a problem with a state rejecting someone who doesn't even comprehend equality of the sexes, secular society or voting.

Like George W. Bush?

She may be a bit fucked up, but if she's fully aware of the situation and chooses to be a submissive recluse, I'm not sure why that should be justification for deportation.

Agreed.

If she's not even aware of the legal foundations of the nation she wants to get in (or from the sounds of it, the nation her male relatives want her in), though, and doesn't want to learn it, they've every right to throw her out.

I think I could agree that contempt for the law is a perfectly good reason not to let someone into the country. Too bad we can't get rid of pre-existing citizens for the same reason

You'd expect something similar if a load of nudists went to Iran or Saudi.

That's not a very good example to use. We believe ourselves to be morally superior to Iran or Saudi Arabia, so citing them as a reasonable benchmark doesn't really work.

[Rye]

That's not a very good example to use. We believe ourselves to be morally superior to Iran or Saudi Arabia, so citing them as a reasonable benchmark doesn't really work.

That may be true, but if a news report came up about the Saudis deporting (or worse, imprisoning) migrant nudists, I would expect the response to be "Why the fuck did they go there?" as much as "the Saudis are dicks." The saudis would be unfair for their justification for deportation, but nobody would be that sympathetic to the deportees because they were so ignorant of the culture/law they were trying to move into.

This woman's a bit more sympathetic since she's obviously been brainwashed since she was young, but I understand that "low quality immigrants" (using that phrase makes me feel right wing ) are ultimately not desirable and a country has an interest in keeping them out.

[Vendetta]

I don't really have a problem with a state rejecting someone who doesn't even comprehend equality of the sexes, secular society or voting.

Like George W. Bush?

I can't imagine Bush being granted French citizenship either....

[Illuminatus Primus]

What is this pretense that the state somehow owes immigrants citizenship? We're stuck with what is born here, why should one source of potential stupidity and social dysfunction justify opening a second source too?

[Kane Starkiller]

What is this pretense that the state somehow owes immigrants citizenship? We're stuck with what is born here, why should one source of potential stupidity and social dysfunction justify opening a second source too?

The state doesn't owe immigrants chitizenship any more than a company owes employment to people. But if they do decide to employ people then we expect them to do so without unnecessary or unwarranted discrimination. Choice of clothes and relationship to your husband fall into that category.
Not to mention that she was living in France for 8 years and has 3 children in France and a husband who is a French national. She wasn't just swept into the country by the tide yesterday.

[Mobius]

Every major party (right and left) is cheering the Decision here in Paris, Left and right together

[Justforfun000]

This is really a thinly veiled slap at muslim values. While I personally don't care for them much myself, I don't think this was the right decision. Not in this way. As it's been said, she has lived there for years, she has learned french, and she has children with a married husband. I think that's more then enough positive factors in her favour. She is choosing to be submissive and reclusive, yes, but that's not a crime.

Of course you could argue she has very little 'choice' in the matter due to her upbringing, but unless you're going to go all the way and say ALL religious conservatism will now be challenged by the state with intervention of education and legal decisions, then they are being hypocrites, no?