Submissive Muslim Denied French Citizenship

[Szass Tam]

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.

She is choosing to be submissive and reclusive, yes, but that's not a crime.

It may not be a crime, no, but it's not something you want when you let someone become a citizen, particularly when it's born out of religious fanaticism, particularly when it's fanaticism for a religion with a history of conquest and repression. As someone previously said, you're sort of stuck with the zealots who are born in your country, and it's not practical to export all of them, but nothing says you have to let more in.

Why shouldn't France take a slap at "Muslim values?" What could the values of desert nomads 1,500 years ago bring to the modern world that wouldn't be regressive?

I'd be for expanding such rulings to apply to all faiths, not for repealing them for one because it might be discriminatory.

[Darth Wong]

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?

A lot depends on whether they're being consistent and public with their policies on the matter. There a Jehovah's Witnesses who come here from the Philippines and marry Canadian citizens who want more submissive wives. Their contempt for our system of laws is palpable, and they will state it explicitly if asked. And yet, I never hear anyone talk of barring these mail-order brides from entry, unlike the talk I hear about doing so to Muslims.

[Justforfun000]

Szass Tam Wrote:

It may not be a crime, no, but it's not something you want when you let someone become a citizen, particularly when it's born out of religious fanaticism, particularly when it's fanaticism for a religion with a history of conquest and repression. As someone previously said, you're sort of stuck with the zealots who are born in your country, and it's not practical to export all of them, but nothing says you have to let more in.

I totally sympathize because I really dislike practically any religious organizations these days because unfortunately no matter how many 'nice' things they have in them, all I ever seem to come up against when it comes to living my life is the negative attitudes and how they affect society and their laws.

But I'm trying to be as fair as possible and not allow my personal feelings to make a difference in these cases. This woman was already IN the country in many ways and did meet them halfway as to learning the language goes too.

It almost seems like the government is trying to control people's behaviour by suggesting that she couldn't assimilate her values with french values.

Why shouldn't France take a slap at "Muslim values?" What could the values of desert nomads 1,500 years ago bring to the modern world that wouldn't be regressive?

I know. I can't help but agree. I have no love for their religious culture whatsoever, believe me. In fact I would be one of the people they'd put to death if I tried to live my life as I see fit.

But shouldn't people be allowed to live out their own personal values as long as they aren't hurting others? It's freedom of expression at the core of the issue here..

[loomer]

Strictly speaking, wouldn't this mean that if I and a future female sub were to move to France, she'd be denied citizenship for not recognizing the 'essential equality', despite being completely willing to surrender control?

There goes a measure of privacy in the bedroom, I guess. No more 'total sub' BDSM relationships.

[Dominus Atheos]

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.

Plenty of jobs have dress codes, dumbass. For example, most places don't allow you to where sweatpants because it's unprofessional. There are reasons why it's important to keep everyone's clothing professional, but not everyone agrees with them. Even on this site, almost everytime the subject of dress codes come up, it causes a debate. But despite what the whiners think, almost every law and court backs the right of a company to have a dress code for it's employees, because the company doesn't owe them employment.

[Dominus Atheos]

Strictly speaking, wouldn't this mean that if I and a future female sub were to move to France, she'd be denied citizenship for not recognizing the 'essential equality', despite being completely willing to surrender control?

There goes a measure of privacy in the bedroom, I guess. No more 'total sub' BDSM relationships.

The issue I have with the Islam practitioner that I wouldn't have with a D/s practitioner is the Muslim is very likely to try to impress their values onto the kids, while the Sub would not. When it involves consenting adults it's not a problem, but if either of them try to indoctrinate their kids into the lifestyle, it's a huge problem.

[hongi]

Strictly speaking, wouldn't this mean that if I and a future female sub were to move to France, she'd be denied citizenship for not recognizing the 'essential equality', despite being completely willing to surrender control?

There goes a measure of privacy in the bedroom, I guess. No more 'total sub' BDSM relationships.

The issue I have with the Islam practitioner that I wouldn't have with a D/s practitioner is the Muslim is very likely to try to impress their values onto the kids, while the Sub would not. When it involves consenting adults it's not a problem, but if either of them try to indoctrinate their kids into the lifestyle, it's a huge problem.

But the government can't regulate how parents raise their children (to a certain extent of course). The state telling how people to live their private lives is what rankles me about this decision. That and telling people to 'live our way or the highway'.

[Kane Starkiller]

Plenty of jobs have dress codes, dumbass. For example, most places don't allow you to where sweatpants because it's unprofessional. There are reasons why it's important to keep everyone's clothing professional, but not everyone agrees with them. Even on this site, almost everytime the subject of dress codes come up, it causes a debate. But despite what the whiners think, almost every law and court backs the right of a company to have a dress code for it's employees, because the company doesn't owe them employment.

You do realize what analogy is right? It doesn't have to be completely identical to the original situation to be valid. I simply stated that there should be no unwarranted discrimination. Obviously the exact relevant criteria won't be the same for various jobs or obtaining citizenship.

[Thanas]

But the government can't regulate how parents raise their children (to a certain extent of course). The state telling how people to live their private lives is what rankles me about this decision. That and telling people to 'live our way or the highway'.

Well, this is France, and continental countries always have had less problems with allowing the state to impress values upon them. And actually, this is not just the state telling people how to live their lives. This is very much the state protecting the core values of modern society, like equality of the sexes, votes, seperation of church and state etc. Why should the state allow in more sexist, fundamentalist fuckheads if there are enough existing already?

And essentially telling those people "our way or the highway" is the only way to deal with fundamentalists. Those people do not want to integrate themselves - they'll happily take state funding and then go around and use it to further their fuckhead agenda. And this is another reason why the french state does not support those people getting citizenship - they would be entitled to a lot of benefits. Why should the state fund people who would like to see it replaced?

[Hillary]

But the government can't regulate how parents raise their children (to a certain extent of course). The state telling how people to live their private lives is what rankles me about this decision. That and telling people to 'live our way or the highway'.

Well, this is France, and continental countries always have had less problems with allowing the state to impress values upon them. And actually, this is not just the state telling people how to live their lives. This is very much the state protecting the core values of modern society, like equality of the sexes, votes, seperation of church and state etc. Why should the state allow in more sexist, fundamentalist fuckheads if there are enough existing already?

And essentially telling those people "our way or the highway" is the only way to deal with fundamentalists. Those people do not want to integrate themselves - they'll happily take state funding and then go around and use it to further their fuckhead agenda. And this is another reason why the french state does not support those people getting citizenship - they would be entitled to a lot of benefits. Why should the state fund people who would like to see it replaced?

That could be said of many a Christian, but I'm pretty damn sure that nobody would be denied French Citizenship because their hardline Christian stance on homosexuals was incompatible with French values.

[Thanas]

^Why not? The french do not cut christians any slack if it comes to secularism.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

There seems to be a pretty fundamental misconception here that the French are biased in favour of Christianity, when France is really the only genuinely secularist country left in the world short of a few remnant communist states. They really have come down hard on white Catholics before, and continue to proceed in the fashion of numerous restrictions on expression of religion, such as the 2004 law banning any kind of religious symbols at all in schools. They don't even recognize the existence of any religions at all, rather they recognize "religious organizations", refusing to even call them what they claim to be.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

Strictly speaking, wouldn't this mean that if I and a future female sub were to move to France, she'd be denied citizenship for not recognizing the 'essential equality', despite being completely willing to surrender control?

There goes a measure of privacy in the bedroom, I guess. No more 'total sub' BDSM relationships.

There's a world of difference here. In any proper d/s relationship, the sub fully understands that they have the same rights as everyone else, and that they are voluntarily giving them up. They aren't losing their 'rights' because of their gender, religion, sexual orientation, whatever. They're losing them because they made the conscious choice to give them up.

It hardly compares to a worldwide religious system that indoctrinates its followers from birth with the idea that certain genders and holders of certain beliefs do not get rights.

[loomer]

It's not meant to fucking compare. It isn't a question, example, comparison, or metaphor. In a total power D/s exchange, it could be said that they do not recognize the equality of men and women, and ergo be denied citizenship.

[Szass Tam]

Szass Tam Wrote:

It may not be a crime, no, but it's not something you want when you let someone become a citizen, particularly when it's born out of religious fanaticism, particularly when it's fanaticism for a religion with a history of conquest and repression. As someone previously said, you're sort of stuck with the zealots who are born in your country, and it's not practical to export all of them, but nothing says you have to let more in.

I totally sympathize because I really dislike practically any religious organizations these days because unfortunately no matter how many 'nice' things they have in them, all I ever seem to come up against when it comes to living my life is the negative attitudes and how they affect society and their laws.

But I'm trying to be as fair as possible and not allow my personal feelings to make a difference in these cases. This woman was already IN the country in many ways and did meet them halfway as to learning the language goes too.

It almost seems like the government is trying to control people's behaviour by suggesting that she couldn't assimilate her values with french values.

Controlling behavior would be outlawing certain behaviors. Keeping people out simply says, "You need to share our values, or you can't get the benefits of being a citizen." Letting people in, whose beliefs and behaviors are contrary to the goals and beliefs of the state, who, if given the chance, would annihilate all the progress France has made in the last 219 years, is suicidal.

Why shouldn't France take a slap at "Muslim values?" What could the values of desert nomads 1,500 years ago bring to the modern world that wouldn't be regressive?

I know. I can't help but agree. I have no love for their religious culture whatsoever, believe me. In fact I would be one of the people they'd put to death if I tried to live my life as I see fit.

But shouldn't people be allowed to live out their own personal values as long as they aren't hurting others? It's freedom of expression at the core of the issue here..

Even if we accept that woman isn't being hurt, aren't her children being hurt by being brought up in an insane belief system, that will make them outcasts in a predominantly irreligious nation? Or what about the potential harm that mass immigration of Muslim Fundamentalists into a democratic nation, who are already rapidly outbreeding the native population?

Further, as Zeon pointed out, France is dedicated to secularism across the board, and has always based its naturalization requirements on being culturally French. If you wholly reject the culture of secularism in politics, then you can't validly said to be French, language or no.

[loomer]

Time to clarify, I suppose, having reread my posts.

I am not comparing BDSM to a religion (though I know a few people who are devoted enough that I probably could in their cases), but rather taking from this article a possibility of similar rulings in future to do with personal sexuality rather than religious practices. This does set some of the groundwork.

[hongi]

Letting people in, whose beliefs and behaviors are contrary to the goals and beliefs of the state, who, if given the chance, would annihilate all the progress France has made in the last 219 years, is suicidal.

And how many French people do not share the goals and beliefs of the state? Surely there are plenty of French people, not only Muslim fundamentalists, who are plenty challenging the beliefs and political, economic and social goals of the state right there within France. Anarchists, anti-war activists, Neo-nazis, terrorists etc etc. What makes a Muslim fundamentalist so different?

It hardly compares to a worldwide religious system that indoctrinates its followers from birth with the idea that certain genders and holders of certain beliefs do not get rights.

Considering that she's been living in France, of course she's likely to know what rights other French women possess. It's not like she grew up in shitholistan without any comprehension of the outside world, she may be a recluse but she can't be totally ignorant of the choices she has. And if she is, then the government can tell her. Automatically she knows she has a choice.

If you wholly reject the culture of secularism in politics, then you can't validly said to be French, language or no.

So any French person who rejects the idea of secularism in politics is not French. What about a person who rejects the idea of secularism in politics, but because he/she is living in another country, goes by its laws and does not seek to challenge them? What if she rejects political secularism personally?

[Oni Koneko Damien]

It's not meant to fucking compare. It isn't a question, example, comparison, or metaphor. In a total power D/s exchange, it could be said that they do not recognize the equality of men and women, and ergo be denied citizenship.

No, it couldn't be said, because both women and men can both make the choice, providing they find a willing partner to do it with. Unless you're dealing with something like Gor followers, but that's disturbingly close to a religion anyways.

but rather taking from this article a possibility of similar rulings in future to do with personal sexuality rather than religious practices. This does set some of the groundwork.

Only if you're dealing with people too stupid to recognize the difference between organized religious dictates and personal sexual preferences. Granted, I don't know just how stupid French courts are in this regard, so you may be right.

Considering that she's been living in France, of course she's likely to know what rights other French women possess. It's not like she grew up in shitholistan without any comprehension of the outside world, she may be a recluse but she can't be totally ignorant of the choices she has.

You willing to place money on that? There are shitloads of people in the most 'open' of countries, raised in households so insular that they are honestly never taught even the basic rights said citizens of that country may have. She can very well be ignorant of the choices she has.

And if she is, then the government can tell her. Automatically she knows she has a choice.

Oh yes, it's just as simple as that. Years of indoctrination can be reversed by someone in government saying, "Oh yeah, and you have equal rights to men, just so you know."

[loomer]

In this case, I'd worry less about stupidity and more about deliberate misuse of precedent. In any case, time for me to cease my tangent.

[Jade Falcon]

There seems to be a pretty fundamental misconception here that the French are biased in favour of Christianity, when France is really the only genuinely secularist country left in the world short of a few remnant communist states. They really have come down hard on white Catholics before, and continue to proceed in the fashion of numerous restrictions on expression of religion, such as the 2004 law banning any kind of religious symbols at all in schools. They don't even recognize the existence of any religions at all, rather they recognize "religious organizations", refusing to even call them what they claim to be.

That's one reason I get a bit irritated when I hear comments about the 'headscarf ban' in France, making it sound as if that's the only ban there is, considering that whole law banned all overt religious symbols.