Emily
MikeOn many occasions, this blog has written about the issue of the French government’s proposal to ban the wearing of a burqa in all public places. (For instance, see these posts in December and October.) Emily and I have disagreed about the proposed ban. I wrote that enacting such a ban was a positive step for women’s rights, even though it was clear that the proposal was intended as a means of slowing the growth of the Muslim population. Emily wrote that such a ban would be anti-Islam rather than pro-woman.
But here is a new twist on the issue. The French government is now refusing to grant citizenship to a Moroccan man who applied for citizenship so he could settle in France with his French wife. France’s immigration minister said the application is being denied because, during a check into the man’s application, the man stated that he would never allow his wife to leave the house without wearing a full veil and that he believed a woman is “an inferior being.” Francois Fillon, the French prime minister, said that he will bar the man from receiving French nationality, adding that the man “has no place in our country” and that “[t]his case is about a religious radical: he imposes the burqa, he imposes the separation of men and women in his own home, and he refuses to shake the hands of women.”
So this is a quite a different issue than whether a woman should be banned from wearing a burqa. This is about preventing a man from obtaining citizenship because he would impose his religious beliefs upon his wife. (It should be noted that two years ago a French court denied citizenship to a veiled Moroccan woman on the grounds that her “radical” practice of Islam was not compatible with French values.)
I would be interested in seeing what you think about this issue.
Filed under: Burqa and Other Veils Tagged: | Burka, Burqa and Other Veils, France, Islam
[...] written multiple times on the French move to ban the wearing of the burqa. (For instance, see this and this and this.) The final decision has not yet been made. The Guardian has yes-no opinions [...]
Complicated issue…you know, the burqa has become a token representing the oppression of women, but many fail to consider that the burqa itself is not the root of women’s oppression in Islamic spheres, but is rather — for some — a symptom of a much more systemic oppression. Banning the burqa doesn’t end women’s oppression, it just renders it a little more invisible…so I have to really question both the motivation behind, and the effectiveness of, such a ban. Whom does it really serve?
Personally, as a feminist and an atheist with strong feelings against religion generally, I don’t see anything wrong with a government denying citizenship to a person who is openly and unapologetically prejudiced against a , as long as that act does not violate that country’s laws and policies. But there are nevertheless two problems with such an action: 1) it emphasizes the importance of national values without addressing the question of actual citizens whose beliefs defy those values and 2) it may very well be a politically motivated move intended to generate support or precedence for the controversial ban on burqas.