Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

French applaud decision to deny woman citizenship over veil

SUSAN SACHS

From Thursday's Globe and Mail

Latest comment posted at 11:07 PM EDT 17/07/08

Because husband requires her to completely cover her face and body, court says woman's acquiescence shows her failure to assimilate ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Bill G from Calgary, Canada writes: What's this? Socialist France returning to common sense? Good move. Hopefully other countries will follow.
  2. Brendan Caron from vancouver, Canada writes: Bravo! Vive la difference! Good one. Now, if we could apply it here in Canada when it occurs. Astute. Get them to wear shoes and get out of the kitchen. Sometimes the French do it right.
  3. Catherine Medernach from Winnipeg, Canada writes: Brendan Caron The likelihood of this happening in Canada are slim to none as things stand today. There is no requirement for people to 'assimilate' because we are a mult-cultural country. To my knowledge there is nowhere here where Muslim dress at any level is considered an issue - except perhaps according to the rules of some sports. IMHO this is going to become more of an issue if we end up with many families like the Kadhr family who hate us and support al'Qaida but retain citizenship.

    The one question I am left with after reading this is - does her husband have citizenship? Would the requirement that he places on his wife prevent his being a citizen? Or is it only the women who have to assimilate?
  4. Mike Sun from Canada writes: The veil should not be allowed in publis places in France in the first place. It's OK if she want to put it on at her own home or room.
  5. Nassar Ben Houdja from Canada writes: Good, if people don't want to live according to the conventions of a western nation, exercise one of the great freedoms, that of returning to one's place of origin.
  6. Jim **** from Canada writes: Canada tolerates multiculturalism and has a high rate of assimilation. France has a low rate of assimilation, in part because the French population resists assimilation.

    Clearly both countries have taken different paths to finding internal harmony.
  7. Jesu Pifco from Canada writes: This old son-of-an-immigrant says: It's the New World, time to get off the boat!
  8. Nick Wright from Halifax, Canada writes: What about her husband's "failure to assimilate" in requiring her to wear the burqa? Typical French reaction: Everyone, including the hypocritical Muslim leaders, turning on the woman for exercising her choice to dress as she pleases and to follow the social customs she pleases. So much for freedom. There is no one social custom in France, and there are millions who don't vote.

    The Europeans' fear of anything that's different is a way of avoiding the underlying racism and xenophobia that is the real root of their immigration problems. There are those in Canada who would like things to be polarized along the same lines; fortunately, Canada is not old enough to have such entrenched, hereditary prejudices--the best efforts of the Harper government to change that notwithstading.

    No one has ever been killed by a burqa, or a veil, or a turban, or a yarmulke, but plenty have been hurt by irrational fear of differences expressed through state policy.
  9. CM Chen from Toronto, Canada writes: What will happen if such a case arises in Canada?

    Will our "Charter of Rights" will be interpreted by our judges to protect the "rights" of the immigrant applying for citizen?

    Will anyone who speak up against such practises be taken to "Human Rights" commissions?

    Will over the top multi-culturalism turned our country into a collection of groups rather than a nation, sharing key common values?
  10. Georges Dordor from Canada writes: Bill G. from CALGARY ??....... Just a reminder. It has been a few years since France had a socialist government, maybe you should change your newspaper or watch another channel, or is it that putting socialist ahead of any person or country is another way of putting them down ????
  11. Between a Rock and a Hard bit from Pattaya, Thailand writes: Fat chance we could get our spineless politicians to do what's right.
  12. Violet Emerson from Canada writes: So I'm assuming her husband and his misogynist buddies were denied citizenship too?

    If not, then this is the most sexist thing I have ever heard.

    The French are tredding on thin ice here, in my opinion.
  13. Jim **** from Canada writes: Graying pundit: That's claptrap. Those views have been refuted endlessly, but you're obviously not the type to abandon your stereotypes. Your loss.
  14. The graying pundit from Ottawa, Canada writes: Violet, her husband was already a French citizen. He met his wife in his travels in Morocco and he brought her back to France.
  15. Ryan Ginger from Canada writes: So what's the big deal, the woman wears a veil? Personally, I think that a lot of what I see women wearing today is utterly tasteless, although for opposite reasons: bulging exposed midriffs packed under flimsy tube tops, tacky tattoos littering lower backs, and the "tooth floss" panty ribbons showing above low-rider jeans. Tasteless.

    And so the woman didn't vote - again, so what? About 25% of eligible voters decided to abstain in the last French election -- and voter apathy is much higher on our North American shores.

    Why people are getting themselves tied up in knots over this I don't know. This is a Pyrrhic victory for the feminists - now she'll be sent back to Morocco where her regressive views will be further reinforced...
  16. V. Rick from Canada writes: Excellent news! I wish those spineless Khadr loving fools will see the merits of this very sane French decison. I just do not understand why more women don't see how belittling the full covering slave -like garb can be. It is unnatural. It is what brain washing or constant beatings will do.
  17. The graying pundit from Ottawa, Canada writes: Actually Jim, it is not claptrap. Islam does not believe in the following: the equality of men and women, the primacy of secular law, the separation of church and state, tolerance of religious differences, the freedom of speech, freedom of thought. Shall I go on?
  18. Violet Emerson from Canada writes: Oh well, following that logic he should lose his citizenship.

    Thin ice, I'm telling you.
  19. Orwellian Nightmare from Canada writes: Enjoy these discussions while you can. The OIC (Organization of Islamic Countries) has been lobbying the UN to declare criticism of Islam a criminal offence. And, when it succeeds, referring to Islam as "gender apartheid," for example (even though evidence indicates that it is), could possibly end up costing you your freedom. Blasphemy laws, anyone?
  20. Rory Robinson from Toronto, Canada writes: Orwellian Nightmare from Canada: Aren't we there for criticizing Judaism? Criticize a jew or deny the holocast and you're in prison while the Judge decides for how long. Oh no, Islam is coming, Islam is coming.
  21. B H from Toronto, Canada writes: While I am disgusted by a lot of things I've seen in France's treatment of conservative Muslims, this doesn't really bother me in the same way. The woman was not a citizen and I don't think a country has an obligation to confer citizenship on anyone who asks. The key is that once someone does have citizenship, the citizenship is total, irrevocable, and entirely equal to that of any other citizen. But making it harder to get that citizenship in the first place seems reasonable enough.
  22. Don Adams, The Conservative Centrist from Canada writes: So, can we now do this too, and somehow use it to get rid of those damned Kadhr women?
  23. Might makes right? from Toronto, Canada writes: The graying pundit from Ottawa, Canada writes: Actually Jim, it is not claptrap. Islam does not believe in the following: the equality of men and women, the primacy of secular law, the separation of church and state, tolerance of religious differences, the freedom of speech, freedom of thought. Shall I go on?

    Correct. Now can you name a religion that truly does believe in these things? Can anybody?

    All religions are crap, other than giving lost souls something to hold on to, which can be a good thing.
  24. Nick Wright from Halifax, Canada writes: The graying pundit: You talk absolute nonsense. Mainstream Islam is a lot more tolerant than some of the larger Chrisian sects, with their "one true god" and eternal damnation for unbelievers. Do some reading.
  25. Don Adams, The Conservative Centrist from Canada writes: Multiculturalism...... the biggest bunch of BS ever foisted on a Country, done by that idiot Trudeau! Q=When oh When are Canadian politicians going to wake up and get rid of this idiotic policy?
  26. Don Adams, The Conservative Centrist from Canada writes: Bob Cajun, you're full of BS. It was Trudeau that entrenched the policy.
  27. Jim **** from Canada writes: Graying pundit: By contrasting the 'West' with 'Islam', you drew a broad brush comparing cultures. Now you are limiting your comments to how some Muslims interpret the Koran. You can't have it both ways. Would you like me to drag out some biblical interpretations to match your regressive out takes from 'Islam'? Shall I go on?
  28. Loudan Bellicose from Canada writes: Nick Wright, I am going to talk real slow now, y o u a r e r e a l l y d u m b o r y o u a r e b a d a t e x p r e s s i n g
    y o u r s e l f . W h a t i s y o u r p o i n t ?
  29. Nick Wright from Halifax, Canada writes: Loudan Bellicose: R e a d i t a g a i n, a n d t h i s t i m e, d r o p y o u r m i n d l e s s p r e j u d i c e s f i r s t.
  30. Loudan Bellicose from Canada writes: Nick, your are different!
  31. A W from Canada writes: If all Governments just "Banned" freedom of Religion, would this not fix so many of our problems?
    It seems that Religious difference's only cause problems day in and day out! Lets just ban it all together.
    Or at least restrict it to your own home and that's it! No more public display of Religion.
    I think the Chinese government has gotten it right with respect to their Religious laws.
  32. Mariposa Belle from Leacockland, Canada writes: Bob Cajun - I will apply the 80-20 rule to your 10:00 pm post. You are spot on with the Quebec Act and various treaties - the 20 per cent being the colonial masters left us drifiting in the wind until the First World War (I'm thinking the bargaining position in 1814).

    The Council of Stste may have got this wrong, but it is certainly attuned to the prevailing winds in France. As far as I know, if this woman had gained status in Canada, and applied for Canadian travel documents, she would have been refused. The regulations allow for religious head coverings, but the face must be uncovered to identify the individual. Seems like a compromise to me.

    As a final note on covering the female body - a woman was recently convicted in the UK for permitting her husband to use her burka in an attempt to escape detection during a bomb plot.

    The high moral ground can hide the basest of humanity.
  33. Katherine R from Canada writes: The graying pundit from Ottawa, Canada writes: France made the right decision. What the West values, Islam abhors. What Islam values, the West abhors. The two cannot peacefully coexist within the same territory because peaceful coexistence is anathma to Islam.

    The graying pundit from Ottawa, Canada writes: Actually Jim, it is not claptrap. Islam does not believe in the following: the equality of men and women, the primacy of secular law, the separation of church and state, tolerance of religious differences, the freedom of speech, freedom of thought. Shall I go on?
    ..............................................................................................................
    Your comments reveal that you view Islam as some sort of monolith where all Muslims act and think in the same ways. Go to Indonesia, the country with the most Muslims in the world (about 200 million) and you will find secular law, the separation of church and state, freedom of speech and thought, the largest democracy in Southeast Asia..... I'm not trying to make Indonesia out to be a perfect wonderland, but you need to understand the huge variation found in Islam. Also, in Indonesia the 'ninja' type veil for women is illegal. And most women there wear jeans and t-shirts.
  34. Nick Wright from Halifax, Canada writes: Loudan Bellicose: I think two definitions of enlightened government are that it neither slips into ideological extremes, nor panders to fears latent among the citizenry for partisan political advantage. Until 2006, Canada--under both Progressive Conservative and Liberal governments--held to the middle course, but now I worry.
  35. Jack Robertson from Toronto, Canada writes: Vive la France! Canada should follow suit with regard to those who choose to wear their Hallowe'en costumes year round.
  36. J.C. Davies from Canada writes:
    How outrageous, expecting someone to act French as a condition of granting them French citizenship.

    In Canada, acquiring citizenship is about as difficult as obtaining a Club Z card from Zellers.
  37. Michael Tripper from Vancouver, Canada writes: who needs a nation of nuns anyways....good ruling.
  38. Nick Wright from Halifax, Canada writes: J.C. Davies: Define "French" or "Canadian" in a way that makes women who wish to wear the veil worthy of being excluded.
  39. Bob McDonald from Canada writes: Citizenship is an incredibly valuable thing. It should be awarded, earned and appreciated. Western societies make it way too easy to get.
  40. guy tozer from Saskatoon, Canada writes: When in Rome, do as the Romans do !!
  41. Jim **** from Canada writes: Most of us did nothing to get our citizenship. I'm not sure why our membership in that exclusive club qualifies us to judge other people.

    We are citizens because we are people.
  42. Greg Stevens from Sidney, Canada writes: My Goodness. Sanity at last. When can Canadians expect the same at our courts?
  43. Nancy Botwin from hamilton, Canada writes: Violet Emerson from Canada writes: So I'm assuming her husband and his misogynist buddies were denied citizenship too? right on sister! When you think about it, fundamentalist muslim married men living in Canada avoid being charged with various crimes committed against their spouses because of religious 'sensitivities'. The same behaviour would not go unpunished if committed by a non-muslim. Hope it's time to re-think 'tolerance' if it means tolerating the right to abuse another, even if they claim mohammed said it was cool.
  44. Eat your Weedies from Canada writes: This is totally wrong... yet it makes me secretly happy. (Quietly smiling...)

    I'll keep my mouth shut and watch the French fumble through their social experiments. It's interesting. We stand to learn from their experience whether or not they are successful!
  45. Nick Wright from Halifax, Canada writes: Just a note based on personal observation: I see women in Halifax daily, wearing some version of bodily covering of their sex. In summer lots of men go naked from the waist up; not so women. I wonder why. Maybe it's an expression of modesty; or maybe it's a pragmatic way of avoiding unwanted "attention".

    It seems to me that all social codes of female "modesty" are arbitrary, and based on pragmatic considerations of what will protect women from violation by physically stronger men in a particular society.

    Some Muslim nations (and some pre-Muslim nations such as Afghanistan) have protected their women through a more restrictive form of modesty in dress--but we can be sure that protection of women's virtue is their primary motivation (no matter what we may think of it with our radical views of "emancipation").

    The uprising against the Soviet-backed Afghan government in 1978 was partially provoked by the banning of the veil and the mixing of men an women in institutions. One manifestation of defiance was women appearing in Kabul's streets, wearing the hijab (face veil). Be careful who you think you're speaking for.

    In any case, the women walking around in veils and burqas in Halifax seem quite sure of who they are, and don't seem diffident in the slightest. Maybe those who object should have a chat with them.
  46. Katherine R from Canada writes: I don't really think that the whole ninja outfit is the big deal here. The fact that her creepy husband kept her inside to the point that she didn't know about voting - THAT's the problem. It seems that denying her citizenship is the only way the situation could be somewhat addressed. There must be other legal angles that could be pursued in such a case... If the woman was already French, then there is nothing that could have been done and we would not be reading an article about it.

    That said, I (as well as 99.9% of Muslims) find covering the face to be completely disturbing. Covering the hair is no big deal, but humans need to see faces to identify one another and to communicate effectively.
  47. Nancy Botwin from hamilton, Canada writes: Katherine R from Canada writes: I don't really think that the whole ninja outfit is the big deal here. .................. I almost spat out my wine laughing when I read that!
  48. Jim **** from Canada writes: The French social experiment isn't likely to work. When people feel their culture is threatened, they hold onto it even tighter. If you want assimilation, the best process is to give people the security of their traditions, and open access to the dominant culture. Their children will be assimilated.

    We have little to learn from France in this regard, they have much to learn from us.
  49. Katherine R from Canada writes: Nick Wright from Halifax: I agree with you that the meaning of all clothes are socially constructed. However, we as a society do get to set some kinds of boundaries. For example, complete nakedness is considered inappropriate in public. Bathing suits are not socially appropriate in offices. Children are not allowed to go to strip clubs. We as a society determine what we feel comfortable with. While I support the concept of multiculturalism, I do have boundaries as to what I find acceptable in Canadian society and in my interpretation of Canadian law. I personally do not like burqas or the black ninja style outfits because I think it is important to see everyone's face in public places.
  50. Katherine R from Canada writes: Nancy Botwin from hamilton: the ninja outfit is a symptom of a much larger, much more complex problem. If we ban ninjas (which I think we should), these larger underlying problems do not magically go away.

    As I said, the ninja thing is not the main issue. It's the fact that the woman was treated as a slave and there seems to be no legal mechanism short of denying citizenship to stop it.
  51. Bill G from Calgary, Canada writes: Georges Dordor, just because they have had a change in government recently not does not mean that their society isn't socialist.
  52. Bill H from Maritimes, Canada writes: Wow, I never thought I would say this, but maybe Canada can learn something from gasp France!
  53. Nancy Botwin from hamilton, Canada writes: Katherine R: ah yes, as per my previous post, the f-ing mysogynists should be prosecuted as would be if they non-muslims .....amen
  54. Nick Wright from Halifax, Canada writes: Katherine R: Your personal reactions, conclusions, and claims of 99.9% of Muslim women agreeing with your views are one thing; government (i.e., policy) treatment of an individual is another. The current Canadian government's treatment of women wearing veils in voting stations just is one example of arbitrariness (how soon we forget!).
  55. Katherine R from Canada writes: Nick Wright from Halifax: Ok, '99.9%' was obviously made up! The point is, the huge majority of Muslim women do not live in countries in which the burqa or ninja (the Saudi-style black outfit) are socially acceptable or even legal. It is seen as completely fringe and associated with Afghanistan / Saudi Arabia.

    As for policy, it's tricky and I don't have a solid solution. On one hand, I think the policies should reflect the views of the majority (as a democracy should), I also don't think that the fate of the minority should be at the whims of an ignorant majority.... It's a tough call for me and I would be very hesitant to have policy introduced to ban these outfits...

    I'm not familiar with your voting example (I have been living overseas for the past two elections) - can you briefly fill me in?
  56. Trevor Russell from Canada writes: So.....many of you portray the women involved as mindless in this matter. What if, by her choice, she chooses to be ignorant of the voting process and chooses to wear a veil. Shouldn't she be FREE to CHOOSE? Many also see nothing wrong with imposing your values, morals, whatever, on her but (if this is the case) anyone, including her husband, who have a DIFFERENT set of values, morals, can't do like wise. Hypocritical! AW want to ban religion. What's next banning ideology that isn't consistent with the masses? How about we ban narrow minded and intolerant materialists who think they have the right to impose their views on others. Years ago we had the religious zealots telling everyone what they had to think and believe, now we have the secular zealots doing the same thing. What's next, arresting dissenters, torturing them, killing them or do we just marginalize them and let them get beaten up or killed and ignore it? Do people even consider the logical conclusions of their statements? We seem to have the same bigoted intolerance toward religion that used to be toward the non religious. BIGOTED INTOLERANCE! The more things change the more they stay the same.
  57. Nancy Botwin from hamilton, Canada writes: Trev, you're whacked.
  58. Brent Purdy from Kaohsiung, Taiwan writes: Jack Robertson from Toronto, Canada writes: "...with regard to those who choose to wear their Hallowe'en costumes year round." I agree Jack. Can't wait to see all those habit wearing nuns rounded up and liberated from their oppressive christian masters. Silly halloween costumes have no place in a tolerent society. J.C. Davies from Canada writes: How outrageous, expecting someone to act French as a condition of granting them French citizenship. You're right J.C., if they wanted to become French they should have read the french dress code first. I'm sure it's spelled out on the government's website. The freedom to wear what you choose is too much responsibility for any person. I've always been a proponant of government control over what may or may not be worn by people. Bob McDonald from Canada writes: Citizenship is an incredibly valuable thing. It should be awarded, earned and appreciated. Western societies make it way too easy to get. So true. Please elaborate on the long arduous journey you took to gain your Canadian citizenship. Embarrasingly enough, I have no such story, I was simply born in Canada. But, I have no doubt, your story is one of high adventure and trials and tribulations endured. V. Rick from Canada writes: ...I wish those spineless Khadr loving fools will see the merits of this very sane French decison. I just do not understand why more women don't see how belittling the full covering slave -like garb can be. It is unnatural. V. Rick if they can't see it then we'll force them to. If they are blind to how belittling their clothing is, there is no choice but to forcibly remove it from them. Our love of freedom demands it. Don't feel bad about your ignorance though, your not understanding it makes your intolerance of it all the more justified. After all, it must be unnatural or you'd obviously understand it. Just dismiss those who disagree with you as spineless Khadr loving fools, which they obviously are.
  59. Katherine R from Canada writes: Trevor Russell from Canada: I think this discussion is about protecting the weakest members of society and allowing them to have options. It doesn't sound like the woman in the article has options as she is locked in her house. Our laws were written to protect the individual and prevent the church/mosque or husbands from controlling their wives and treating them like property. In the case of the article, the husband does not have the right to take away the individual rights of his wife, just because he feels like it or because that is his culture. Similarly, I am not allowed to murder you even if I claim that is my culture because your individual rights are protected under the law.

    And, uh... try to lay off the meth while posting! You kind of sound hysterical.
  60. Nancy Botwin from hamilton, Canada writes: go figure, Brent is even more whacked than Trev.
  61. Katherine R from Canada writes: yeah - the nuts are coming out of the woodwork.... Nancy, it's just you and me left here! Thanks - twas fun!
  62. busboyceo ~ from Canada writes: Sounds like a country that is very tired of it all. I am not onside with that clothing practise for what it can sometimes stand for in regards to full and equal treatment of women (all humans for that matter) but do not forget that people can wear whatever they want. If I wanted to wear that and plead to be a sub to anybody or anything I could and the state here could not do jack. That ruling is dead wrong and is not in the correct direction if France wishes to come to terms with it's migrant issues.
  63. Michael Sharp from Victoria, Canada writes:

    Social progression is demanding that woman not have to suffer the burkha in a secular society.

    That form of secularism?
    That form of social progression?

    I'm all for that.

    Where is the rage of Canadian women at the brutality of their sisters suffered under radical Islam?
    Why are Canadian women silent?

    I really don't get much social progression.
    It dinna make no sense.

    This bit I get.
    Well done, France.
  64. busboyceo ~ from Canada writes: Also think of the children in that family. Agree or not are they to see their mother deported now over a way of thinking and dress that is legal? Shame on France.
  65. Angus S Miskers from Victoria, Canada writes: I now wish to emigrate to France. I am especially looking forward to 'assimilating' with some fo these liberated French women!

    Seriously, I know it is a complex issue, but I admire the French taking a stand on asserting their culture. They do risk sitrring the already-boiling pot of discontent among their ethnic communities, though.
  66. Karin Pasnak from North Vancouver, Canada writes: When in Rome do as the Romans do
  67. busboyceo ~ from Canada writes: The graying pundit from Ottawa, Canada writes: France made the right decision. What the West values, Islam abhors. What Islam values, the West abhors. The two cannot peacefully coexist within the same territory because peaceful coexistence is anathma to Islam.

    Not to pick on you buddy but sorry we are doing just fine here.
  68. Xiaoping Li from Canada writes: Instead of looking at this issue from legal, value and global political perspectives, we should let our conscience guide our perspectives on this.

    http://xiaopingli.com/2008/07/conscience-the-way-to-deal-with-a-jew-muslim-or-chinese/
  69. Jo Ingblat from Canada writes: Now, obviously most responders are spewing the usual crap about how terrible multiculturalism is, and how right-on France is on this one. Frankly, these kinds of things make me proud to be Canadian. For all you doomsayers: Canada works. Period. It is the best country in the world, and there's no reason to think we're collapsing or falling apart. You've been warning us since the Irish and Italians were arriving with their crazy Roman Catholic ideas. Get over your xenophoebia. Canada's Muslims are by-and-large integrated, moderate, and doing fine. France, on the other hand, is a racially and ethnically divided country, where being an immigrant is A VERY BAD IDEA! I'm proud that we don't force our immigrants to wear berets, take up the accordion, and drink fine wine. In Canada--GET THIS!--you can think, dress, and live according to your heart's desire. What a novel idea! The French might do well to read over the American Constitution that so inspired them some hundreds of years ago. All things considered, those wacky Revolutionaries had some good ideas.
  70. Harbinger from Out West from Canada writes: Did she do her banking in her burka? Might give the tellers an eyebrow rise. But then again, maybe she did her banking online. My bank says I should remove my sunglasses and hat before I enter. What a world!
  71. sudhir jain from Canada writes: Obviously the French don't go for multiculturism. What a pity.
  72. B A from Ottawa, Canada writes: Good for the French on this one. Ok, time for a balanced (read: boring) reality check. What people miss on most of these "Muslim" issues is that they are not "Muslim" issues. If you look at history of the Middle East prior to Mohammed, Islam simply enshrined a socially historical practice of segregation and ownership of people that already existed in the region. The only thing Islam did was unite the cultural practices of a series of tribal regions in order to achieve buy-in. Once the religion reached critical mass Islam expanded through a process of conquest and conversion (the same as Christianity). What we are arguing against may have been enshrined through religion (ie. they're using religion as an excuse to maintain outdated survival practices of a series of desert tribes dating back several thousand years) but make no mistake, it is a denial of rights by one person over another in direct contradiction of current 21st Century state laws and practices. Time to evolve, people, and stop using religion as a crutch. And just to be clear, this should hold true on any Abrahamic based faith. (Judeasim, Christinanty, or Islam). Enough already. The tribal practices people have been led to believe were commanded by God existed long before some guy decided to write them down and call them holy.
  73. JP M from Canada writes: It's amazing how many people are willing to be so vocal about a subject they clearly know so little about. Might want to consider speaking to an Islamic woman, many of whom chose to wear a buqa, hijab or other Islamic attire of their own free will. Are there abuses of women in Muslim societies? Sure there are, as there are in all societies and cultures. People should travel a little and meet some people before they start condemning others. The political climate in France over the past years doesn't exactly resemble that of a strong culture, but rather smacks of the fear and insecurity that drives separatist Quebecois... a shame really.
  74. Brent Purdy from Kaohsiung, Taiwan writes: That's right Nancy, I must be a whack job. Let's see the "crazy" things I posted. Hmmm, I suggested that someone might call a nun's habit a Halloween costume as well. Perhaps, I got that whack job idea from the numerous times I've seen people dressed as nuns on halloween. Crazy! Or, maybe, the mysogynistic characteristics of christianity have been lost on you over the years. Obviously, since no woman would willingly aquiesce to joining an organization with blatently mysogonistic overtones of their own free will, it must be some sort of brainwashing requiring self righteous do gooders to liberate them from their self imposed enslavement. Or is that reserved for Muslim women only? I suggested that being born into a country is hardly a super star effort on the part of the baby. Nuts! The idea of a government enforced dress code is foolish. Well I'm sure you'd love the idea of the government telling you what you can and can't wear. Or to suggest that, perhaps, one must do what one is told to do in a "free" society is a bit hypocritical... craziness! Or perhaps the "I don't understand it and therefore it must be wrong". As well as referring to something that you, admittedly, don't understand as "unnatural" argument combined with referring to people who disagree with you as "spineless Khadr lovers" is a bit childish. That's obviously a whacked out idea. You keep advocating forcibly liberating people. After all, if they won't liberate themselves it's up to "I know better then you" types to protect people from themselves. We all know those less civilized types need paternalistic do gooders to tell them how they should live. Perhaps, in the future something a little more constructive then calling people you disagree with "whackos" might show people that your opinions should be taken seriously. Or that you can engage in debate at an adult level.
  75. Peter Douglas from Canada writes: They burn cars in the streets of France because of this type of racist government policies! Quebec should take notes and not make the same mistakes! Old Europe is still alive and well in New France....sleep well....FYI...France has the largest population of Muslims in Europe! We need to encourage and support people of all cultures and religious beliefs to ensure a stable and safe future!
  76. Michael Sharp from Victoria, Canada writes:

    The burkha represents the subjugation of women!

    Vive le France!!
  77. Loudan Bellicose from Canada writes: Vive la France.
    Just as the French taught the Monarchist a lesson, they now teach other other elitist, ( Muslims), that impose their perverted ways a lesson.
  78. Shane Thompson from Pickering, Canada writes: Sounds like French tough love to me. Adapt, embrace freedom and equality or get the hell out. The Cdn approach is a little more subtle but will have the same effect. By embracing their differences they will in turn embrace ours and eventually see the light so to speak. Grand ma and mom might stick to the old ways but eventually times change for all cultures. I for one would never underestimate the strength and rebelliousness of a teenage girl regardless of her religious upbringing.
  79. Mark Stone from Detroit, United States writes: Good job. Thank you for carrying this story. There was great commentary by heads of Moslem organizations in France as well. I'm sure many in Turkey were also relieved with this ruling by the French court.
  80. mary wells from Canada writes: Burqua??????/ give me a break...a shroud is a shroud and i would have no objection to it as long as the men were required to wear the same.But these nuckle dragging neandrathols apparently have no more control over their libido or emotions than a pack of wild dogs in heat.Can you just imagine the sadness of never having the sun shine on your face or body or feel the wind on your skin........and please dont call it "culture".....it is control and abuse of humans based on their gender.And just because something has gone on for centuries doesnt make it right.
  81. Brenton E. from Canada writes: most religion is build on the twin pillars of "fear of death" and "control of women" and should be fought where ever, whenever possible. I love the french reaction (I am also offended by the burka) but think this action will not succeed and probably should not succeed.
  82. JC perfide from Paris, France writes:
    No more French bashing, not any white flags mentioning, I am getting bore.
  83. Robert P from Montreal, Canada writes: So, is the state going to charge the husband with wife abuse? If this act of submission is so horrible and against French society why don't they come to the defence of these women? Or is this just an excuse?
  84. G Montcler from Canada writes: Great news indeed! Unfortunately our overpaid and underworked judges in the higher courts would not go for it. All in the name of the Charter.
  85. Robert P from Montreal, Canada writes: al bell from Canada writes: "What about the fate of this woman's three young children? They are all French citizens. I was surprised that the article never mentioned what the future might hold for them. The mother would likely be devastated to leave them."

    I thought the same. Any of these children girls? But, you and others are assuming she will have to leave France. You can live in France and not be a citizen.
  86. ANONY MOOSE from writes: Its about time.Take the sack off your head and get it right. You want to become a citizen of a country whose values were steeped in christianity then learn to conform.
  87. c rob from Canada writes: From the article: "Abdelalai Mamoun, an imam in the suburb where the Moroccan woman lived, told a Paris newspaper that women who voluntarily veil themselves “are rejecting the system” and should emigrate to Muslim countries." Now isn't that interesting eh? An imam who does not side with enforcement of religious attire for women. So I guess not all muslims are fanatics after all. It is time to stop painting a single religion with one brush. That's bigotry and I'd like to think as Canadians we are better informed than that. There are a number of sects active within Islam much like there are in Christianity. Some are more fluid than others, while some, as current events show, are downright dangerous. Either way, there are Muslims who honour the laws of the nations they inhabit. I would suggest that the imam quoted in the article certainly reflects this. Quite frankly, if someone does not like the laws of the land they have chosen to call home, they have the option of leaving. You show me where I can walk down the street in a fundamentalist islamic country in shorts and I'll show you the stones they would use to beat me. There is a difference between choice and enforcement/subjugation. I stongly suspect most moderate Muslims (the majority by the way) agree with this as much as anyone else does.
  88. Blasphemous Apostate from Cahones, Mexico writes: Finally, the Europeans are coming to their senses.....now if only our government would do the same.....
  89. Blasphemous Apostate from Cahones, Mexico writes: Peter Douglas from Canada writes: "We need to encourage and support people of all cultures and religious beliefs to ensure a stable and safe future!"

    -----------------------------
    You sure have bought into the Trudeau legacy BS.....multicluturalism is a failure. People who come here should either adapt or leave. As for religion, there should be NO protections under the Charter or elsewhere....until that is the case we will NEVER be a truly secular nation. As the system is now, we are simply bullied and harassed by religious minorities that use their "protections" as swords, rather than as the shields they were intended to be. I fear that by the time people like you wake up and realize this it will be far too late.
  90. Canada First from Canada writes: At least one country in the free world won't turn a blind eye to submissive abuse (supposedly called a religious right) for the sake of internal harmony. Good for you France - Canada learn a lesson, freedom of religion at what cost.
  91. w forward from United States writes: Can we please lock E. Biggs from Canada in a room and only let him out with a cloth over his head? PLEASE?
  92. Mike........ Just Mike from Toronto, Canada writes: Good for France. This woman wasn't a citizen and they owe her nothing. If she refuses to adapt to French society why should they give her citizenship. I agree wholeheartedly with this decision. Islam like all religions is vile. And incompatable with secular western values. She would've been free to wear her stupid costume at home..But in public no. And before all the doo gooders say discrimination pls note that France has a ban on ALL religious symbols from public view...Of course many here believe that only muslims should be exempt.
  93. Zack Fair from Canada writes: After reading most posts, my conclusion: Katherine R gets it. Nick Wright doesn't.
  94. Jan Burton from Toronto, Canada writes: This is a good decision but it's far too little and far too late.
  95. Kim Philby from Ottawa, Canada writes: I agree that the niqab symbolizes the oppression of women, and I suspect that Muslim women who claim they wear burkas and niqabs out of choice are deluding themselves.

    Having said that, security considerations aside, does the state really have any business drawing lines as to what garb is acceptable as far as meeting standards of cultural "assimilation"? Is France going to start refusing citizenship to those wearing African dashikis?

    If the issue is that France considers the burka or niqab an intolerable symbol of oppression of women, where do you draw the line? I suspect there's a lot of misogyny in Hasidic and Christian fundamentalist communities, too. Is it the job of the state to try to right all these cases of religion run amok? Any state that tries might be biting off a lot more than it can chew.
  96. Gogh Forit from Canada writes: I see no problem with insisting that a potential voter prove who he or she is by removing an obstruction to the correct identification of the person who has been requested to remove the obstruction. Same goes for driver's licenses or any other document that has general rules applied to all citizens without exceptions.
    Muslim women who vote in Canada and wear face coverings must realize or be made to realize that in order to vote, officials must know that the person registering to vote can verify that the printed info about their identity can be backed up with proof. There's absolutely nothing disrespectful in these requests. Why should we as a fair-minded people allow anything else that a majority couldn't also enjoy, such as keeping the veil on and still have the rights and privileges accorded to citizens who don't wear veils.
    Hurray for France.
  97. Silent Majority from Canada writes: Now if only this Country would follow France's lead.
  98. Two Cents from Canada writes: This is a brilliant case and I fully agree with the decision. Make no mistake about it: the decision was not against Islam but against anti-assimilation of immigrants. I'm glad even the French Muslim community supported the decision!
  99. anonymouse Z from Canada writes: LOU Padula from montreal, Canada writes: I guess the Libertty in "egalite, fraternite, liberte" only applies to people who generally conform to the French Nationalist view of what constitutes an acceptable French Citizen.
    So if you are not part of the main French cultural stream, and have not assimilated into the overbearing mainstream culture then you cannot be French and different at the same time.
    _____________________________________________________

    Liberty is never absolute. In this case, the woman (like a lot of immigrants from various nations) refuses to assimilate in the country she is applying to adopt as "hers". She chose her path, and the country chose its path. If she wants something, she must work at it. France is not obliged to give citizenship to just anyone. A country has the right to chose whom it grants the honor of citizenship.

    Actually, her choice does hurt someone else: her daughters if she has any. And the sons she is raising and their future wives. These French citizens will face the same oppression and no choices.
  100. ali mansur from Etobicoke, Canada writes: Jo Ingblat from Canada writes: For all you doomsayers: Canada works. Period.

    -----------------

    I suspect you are incorrect in this regard. You simply do not see the issues. You should go look at some human-resources chat-forums. On any given day, someone somewhere decides that being forced to work with a Jew or a woman is a constructive dismissal.

    An unending list of HR problems is cropping up because of the current stream of immigrants who are unable to assimilate.

    If one more person equates the current demographic of immigration to that of the past, I'll go ballistic.
  101. Vic Hotte from Kettleby, Canada writes: It is odd that someone wants to be trapped in 6th century values dubiously associated with 'The Prophet'. Muslims are not alone in clinging to stories from a millenium ago ... that is typical of fundamentalism of any religious variety. The pr