If, knowing that I have choices, I choose to enslave myself (that would be a winner!) to another person (irrespective of my ‘owner’s’ wishes) contrary to the freedoms and principles of my country as set down by law, should my decision stand? As an adult?

Yes, my Hamiltonian sense of liberty says that if by your own conscious choice you take action that harms only you and no one around you, then go wild.

To all, how about the following: How about giving the woman “assimilation” lessons in French culture as how new immigrants to Canada receive free English/French lessons for the first few months they arrive in Canada?

Anyway, both you and Oliver seem to have over looked the last part of my comment:
“They would have done better to ignore the burqa and explain the French laws regarding marital relations and divorce to her instead.”
As the article pointed out, she didn’t actually start wearing the thing until she moved to France, suggesting that she may have been under pressure from her husband and family. That suggests that teaching her what her rights are might have worked better than assuming she was a radical and denying her citizenship.

The State didn’t reject Mrs. Faizal on the grounds of her dress; that was already ruled incompatible with French and European law by the Council of State in a prior decision. Rather, she was rejected on the grounds that her stance towards society at large was incompatible with French values, in particular with regards to the equality of the sexes. The veil itself is incidental to the decision, both by the government and of the Council; her religious practices, as channeled through her role in society, are what leads us to the conclusion.

@ Younghusband, on the second point: your reasoning is muddled. If, knowing that I have choices, I choose to enslave myself (that would be a winner!) to another person (irrespective of my ‘owner’s’ wishes) contrary to the freedoms and principles of my country as set down by law, should my decision stand? As an adult?

Also, as per point three, the State has the right to deny citizenship to anyone on non-linguistic grounds (a right already reserved to the govt. as cemented elsewhere) if doing otherwise would be reprehensible to the community (e.g. a known terrorist applies for citizenship) or the person fails on the grounds of insufficient assimilation. The govt. based its rejection on the second category and proceeded as such. You’re right, the burqa (nor the niqab, as in this case) aren’t illegal in France; but that isn’t what’s at stake here.

@ Michael: Since when are mottos placeholders for the law? A motto is a nice little statement with no legal basis; it articulates a vision, not a legal principle. And, to repeat myself ad nauseum, it wasn’t over ‘a piece of cloth’.

@ Glenn Anderson: Sharia Law isn’t being ‘passed’ in the UK. There are issues regarding Sharia community arbitration that are being debated in the public realm, and I agree there is something to that, but no one has proposed making Sharia law co-equal with British law…I’m sorry the press have been so sloppy in reporting the government’s stated reasons for rejecting her application…that doesn’t mean the French have got it wrong.

and @ Oliver: Well said. Or as Alistair Campbell once told Tony Blair, ‘we don’t do God’...at least not in the public realm, and increasingly not even in the private one. As a young American living in Europe I couldn’t agree more.

I surmise that our libertarian friends are equally offended by state organized collective armies, rather than privatized security, as such government interference in organization of personal defense, be it policing, military, or intelligence, is perhaps more offensive to libertarian ideals.

Like others among us, I find state action important in a number of applications. The right of a nation to defense is an fundamental right of statehood. “Fitness for citizenship” is a rather ambiguous test in jurisprudence, but it is not one that is beyond ability of the courts. As an example, the United States requires, among other things:

1. demonstrat[ion of] good moral character; and
2. demonstrat[ion of] an attachment to the principles and ideals of the US Constitution.

While these things are subject to interpretation, I think it is not beyond argument that a foreign person seeking citizenship in a country which promises certain rights to all citizens, including freedom of religion, may present a problem for the freedom of religion of their issue, if it is clear that the person is a conservative Moslem.

Whether or not an abstraction into jurisprudential and philosophical hypothesis will lead us to believe that this determination infringes on the religious practice of the applicant, realism will dictate that these laws and philosophies are sui generis to the Western Christian system. This system has not been successfully tested amongst the Moslem nation(s), likely because this religion, uniquely amongst world religions, purports to be the system of law in and of itself. Islamic practice can, in my opinion, make a person “detached from the principles and ideals” of the several Nations of Western society, to the laws (and customs) of which these applicants have chosen to subject themselves. Insofar as a person believes, as a matter of their religion, that they may deny certain rights to others, including life, liberty, or safety, that person, as an applicant to enjoy the benefits they seek to deny either themselves or others, may be unfit for citizenship of the nation sought.

Immigration is not a right, and the freedom of religion is no carte blanche, but is a right that is curtailed to the extent that it infringes the basic rights of others. Aside from the massive cultural destruction that a blind tolerance of intolerance and austerity has wrought upon European society, I suspect that in a time of a war, the fidelity of a plurality of naturalized members of Europeans society could not be relied upon to generate a defensive armed force.

I believe the time for abstraction and relativism has passed. Social cohesion and the sense of national identity has been sacrificed to the willful ignorance to the hostility of applicants to membership in these societies to the very values they seek to exploit. I find the decision of the French court a correct one in light of the statutory right of the nation to differentiate between applicants for citizenship, as well as for the strategic interest in national defense (likely contemplated in the former). If anything, such considerations are too infrequent in Europe.

In a reply to YH, she’s an adult she has made a choice we disapprove of in our fellow citizens, so she’ll not become one of them.

I am concerned we do not know the complete story of Faiza M nor of her husbands complete beliefs. We are left speculating and feeling in the gaps with what information? We also need to keep in mind the conflict between the state of Morocco and Algeria. The Algerian official could be making a jibe at the King Mohammad VI by implying “totalitarian political project” as cleverly saying his countries constitutional monarchy is a joke.

Europe is struggling to find a balance between religious freedom and personal freedom. Expect this to continue as Islam tries to come to terms with secularism. It will be fascinating to watch the religion embrace/evolve to realities of today. Anybody else get a sinking feeling in their stomach when Sharia Law is trying to get passed, like in the UK?

In the end, if we take this story at its face value one can surmise that the French have made a mockery of their own motto. While they have the right to reject her citizenship, one can still wonder if they were really justified to do so. From what we have read, the obvious answer would be emphatically “No!”

They would have done better to ignore the burqa and explain the French laws regarding marital relations and divorce to her instead.

But I guess it’s decided then. If you are born into that society you are inherintly not free. Thus any sqawk of protest when, for example, we the free bomb your family is just the result of brainwashing.

It eez klar to me zat ve must kontinu to free ze unfrei peoples of ze vorld!

@James We all have choices, but often we do not know we have choices. The French government could simply outlaw religion altogether, but that is not going to help the situation. If anything, that will just fan radicalism. The best way is to educate the people to be critical thinkers, and let them know that it is okay to make your own decisions about your own life. Faiza M. obviously knows she has choices, she didn’t wear a burqa in Morocco and there are many women in France that do not wear one. Knowing that she has choices, if she chooses to totally submit herself to her menfolk, that is her decision. She is an adult.

@Matt Yes, it is the state’s right to accept or deny who it chooses. My argument is that the value of freedom, as enshrined in the motto of France itself, voids such an arbitrary criteria as dress length. Furthermore, to my knowledge the burqa is not yet outlawed in France. If there is any other viable reason to deny her citizenship, then so be it.

I do not see why granting citizenship to anyone that wants it regardless of their beliefs has anything to do with French liberty. France is in serious trouble, and it’s immigration policy has been a huge mistake. France assumed that everyone had the same values and had the same goals in life, which has been proven wrong.

Did this woman pick her faith when she was born? As a child, did she choose to be indoctrinated into a belief system that compelled her to live her life in “total submission” to male family members? Is it likely that she was even allowed the chance to choose the man she married?