Good On France for Denying Citizenship to a Misogynist
In the wake of all the kerfuffle in France about the veil of late, the French government is putting its money where its mouth is and has denied the citizenship application of a Moroccan man who forces his wife to wear the veil on the basis that the practice is incompatible with France’s values.
According to French immigration Minister, Eric Besson, the man’s application was denied because of the behaviour he displayed towards his French wife, which Besson argues contravenes secularism and women’s rights:
“It emerged during the inquiry and the interview process that this person forced his wife to wear the full veil, deprived her of freedom of movement with her face exposed and rejected the principles of secularism and equality between men and women,” Besson said in a statement.
According to the transcript of his ruling:
“Monsieur X displays in an everyday manner a discriminatory attitude towards women, going as far as refusing to shake their hands and advocating the separation of boys and girls including, at home, of brothers and sisters,” the ruling read.
“The lifestyle he has chosen may be justified by religious precepts but is incompatible with the values of the Republic, notably the principle of equality of the sexes.”
For anyone following the French veil debate or my position on it, this statement may come as a bit of a surprise, but I actually commend France for this move. While I have said before that I believe their obsession with this particular cultural practice is misdirected, paternalistic, and punishing the very women they claim to be liberating, I actually commend legal sanctions against the men/institutions/power structures behind such cultural practices. It is not as though the man has been deported or lost his legal status in the country – he presumably retains his permanent residency status. I see this decision akin to putting a petulant child in a three-minute time-out. It is formally recognizing and condemning behaviour that the country hopes to change, or encourage change.
Don’t take this as my final say on the matter, but my gut reaction is: good on you, France. Let’s take more measures to make the oppression of women less appealling to men/institutions/power structures.
February 4th, 2010 at 9:34 am
While France and cities within France have very diverse populations, France does not have the concept of multiculturalism that we have here. I think part of this lack of official multiculturalism has to do with historical changes within France. At the time of the 1789 revolution, a minority of people spoke French–mostly around Paris and in the north. Eventually, the French language did spread throughout the country. There are pockets that still speak Catalan, Germanic dialects, and Breton.
France is not only a country; it is an ideal. Everyone is theoretically equal in a republic that prides itself on liberty, equality, and fraternity. If people decide to live in France, those people choose to accept the ideals and beliefs of the republic.
In Canada, our ideals evolve depending on the time and culture of a particular area. Canada evolves as newcomers settle in Canada. In general, our evolution works for us. We can generally deal with the differences between Quebec and the rest of Canada. We can deal with differences within our own cities and regions. Things are not always perfect, but we are adaptable. For example, the British influence on English Canadian society is very minimal. We are influenced by the Americans even though we are not part of America/the States. We may not like women wearing burqas and niqabs but we tolerate it. We are equal based on our own individual needs even if you choose to repress yourself to the rest of the world.
I have mentioned on other comment boards before that in Novermber 2005, I was in Paris, France during the riots. Fortunately, the rioting to place in the poorer suburbs and not in the centre of Paris. I remember talking to a few French men at a semi-buffet style restaurant called “Flunch.” They three Frenchmen were of different backgrounds. The first man said that the riots were happening because of the problems between the French and North-African Arabs. The second man stated that the problem was between the French and West-African blacks. The third man disagreed. He said that the riots were happening because of the problems between the French and French. Vive la République!