On July 16, 2008, the Couseil D'Etat, France's highest administrative court issued a decision denying French citizenship to 32-year-old Faiza Mabchour. According to the decision her citizenship application was denied because she had "failed to integrate" and because her acquiescence to wear the niqab demonstrated behaviour "incompatible with the essential values of the French community and notably the principle of equality of the sexes".

Since the Conseil's decision in the Mabchour case, politicians from the French Left and Right have endorsed the decision lauding it as a "springboard to the emancipation and freedom of women". Notable among these has been Fadela Amara, an Algerian born minister for urban affairs who called the niqab a means of oppressing women saying: "it's not an expression of religiosity, but the visible expression of a totalitarian position."

Emanuelle Prada Bordenave, the Commissioner who issued the decision noted that Faiza Mabchour "lives virtually as a recluse disconnected from French society, she has no conception of laicite (the French principle of secular state), nor the right to vote and she lives in total subservience to the men in her family"

The woman at the centre of the controversy, Faiza Mabchour moved to France in 2000 when she married a Frenchman of Algerian origin. The mother of three attempted to defend her decision to wear the niqab in her immigration application by stating that other immigrants also maintain "ties to their culture of origin". Both she and her husband admitted to French immigration officials that they were adherents of Salafism.

The refusal of citizenship to Ms Mabchour is the first decision in which a woman has been refused French citizenship based on the charge of "insufficient assimilation".

While avowed feminists like Fadela Amara are lauding the French state's activist stance in making a bold statement against the niqab, their pronouncements in the name of feminism fail to see the multidimensional nature of the problem or the larger impact of denial of citizenship on immigrant women in France.

Indeed, if the uplift and emancipation of women is the ultimate purpose that the French state is devoted to, the question that emanates from the particular controversy is how the denial of citizenship to a woman, already known to be oppressed within her family, furthers the project of liberating her?

To be clear, French citizenship, the right to vote and the eligibility to obtain state benefits would have entitled Ms Mabchour to greater rights than those available to her in the legal limbo between non-citizenship and citizenship. It is ironic indeed then that that the denial of citizenship is being painted as a victory for the emancipation of women.

The dynamics of the controversy are instructive because the construction of the debate as a choice between French secular principles that frown on religious expression in the public sphere versus extreme and radical interpretations of Islam which relegate women to an anonymous life behind the niqab eliminates from the conversation the more vexing issues of xenophobia, anti-immigrant prejudice and economic disenfranchisement that also afflict France.

Indeed, painting the fight as a valorous one between progressive French ideals of gender equality and the archaic medieval oppression of the niqab creates a convenient black and white equation where the obvious choice for all who support equality lies neatly with the decisions of the French state.

Yet, as report after report has demonstrated, issues of Islamic extremism and the reticence of France's Muslims to engage with the larger French society represent a complex melee of systemic economic disenfranchisement of France's Muslim minority. The geographic ghettoisation of France's Muslims in economically depressed urban suburbs, the lack of employment opportunities, rampant discrimination against minorities all represent crucial structural issues which are all conveniently swept under the veil controversy.

According to the Annual Report published by the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia a recent survey carried out in France revealed that a man of Maghrebian origin had only a 36 percent chance of being called to an interview after submitting his resume while a Frenchman (with a French surname) had a 100 percent chance.

A similar study by the International Labour Office carried out in six different French cities revealed that a man with a French last name was preferred over a man of Maghrebian or Black African origin four out of five times. Other reports of discrimination also abound: in one recent case 72 Muslim baggage handlers working at a French airport were summarily fired because they were believed to be a "security risk". There was no investigation of their background or even the "degree of assimilation" before the determination was made, they were fired simply because their choice of religion was considered too suspicious to warrant continued employment.

The discussion serves to illustrate the complexities of the veiling and niqab issue in the context of Muslim minorities living in Europe. The symbolic terror of the head-to-toe black shroud and the relegation of women to its recesses has in an unfortunate play of rhetoric, become a convenient scapegoat that deflects attention from the many ways in which the French state has failed its immigrants.

While states undoubtedly have a right to mandate and expect loyalties to their founding ideological principles, to first exclude a minority through racism and xenophobia and then turn around and castigate those same immigrants for the "failure to assimilate" seems like a redundant and malicious policy.

Finally, the ultimate tragedy ensconced in the French court's decision is that it takes a woman it knows to be victimised and then deliberately and purposefully victimises her some more by relegating her to a non-citizen status worthy of even fewer rights.

If Faiza Mabchour was victimised once by an oppressive interpretation of Islam chosen by her husband she was victimised again by the French state, who posturing as supposed champion of female emancipation, failed to see her as worthy of belonging. In measuring "assimilation" in terms of appearance and dress, the French state has created a legal foundation for arbitrarily denying citizenship to all those that fail to satisfy an increasingly narrow conception of French identity while conveniently hiding its incipient problems of xenophobia and immigrant prejudice under convenient symbol of the niqab.

(Photo: Oren Levine via flickr under a Creative Commons license

Well, what can I say here? I think this was coming sooner rather than later. We have to respect the land we decide to settle in and integrate within a society that is purely western.
For too long, western sociewty has bend backwards to ethnics demands. No wonder the host nations are beginning to get angry and frustrated by the loss or disappearnce of their own culture.
When you live in Rome do as the Romans!!The same applies to westerners visiting or settling on muslim land.

Munna, I agree with you. While the legal vehicle used by the French may set unwanted precedents, as the author points out, I think that European countries (not just France) have a right to resist the presence of the niqab in their country. Immigrants should not be arrogant enough to expect their host societies to conform to their ways of life. (Disclosure: my family, too, were immigrants to my country.) And the niqab is not compatible with western life. Plain and simple. I've lived in Amman, Jordan, and America. Different places, different traditions. I did not rail against the niqab while I lived in Jordan, nor did I walk around in clothing that was imodest. Different places, different traditions.

Mind you in Turkey, one cannot even wear a hijab (which is not being opposed in this new immigration tactic) in the public sector (i.e. colleges, gov't jobs, etc...)

Also, the author remarks, "The symbolic terror of the head-to-toe black shroud and the relegation of women to its recesses has[,] in an unfortunate play of rhetoric, become a convenient scapegoat that deflects attention from the many ways in which the French state has failed its immigrants." But it is important to understand that in addition to how it is being used as a scapegoat, it is also a real issue that provokes real, legitimate fear (not just politicized fear!!) in many citizens of Europe.

I'm not one for national dress codes, myself. Although if it would prevent people from showing their thongs in public, I could be swayed. Laicete is not working; if France wants a secular society, it's either going to have to go the way of the U.S.S.R., or the U.S.A.- half measures are simply creating the repression they seek to avoid.

When you choose to emigrate to a country, respect for a country's ideals is expected.

Women walking around with their face and body completely shrouded in black is often frightening to people not accustomed to such clothing.

Why can't we Muslims show some flexibility and respect for our new homeland's traditions?

I'm generally frightened by florid looking, loud men. Should they be denied citizenship, as well? And what if the homeland is not a new one? Should one go to one's nearest non-Muslim neighbors for orders regarding the national uniform and dress code? Why are Muslims always assumed to be foreign?

People are lauding this decision as a victory for female emancipation because it's sending a clear message that wearing niqab and blindly submitting to your husband are backward (*gasp!*) and will negatively affect your standing in the West. They don't care that their decision is only hurting this particular woman even more, because to them she is already dead, a hopeless case, seeing as after having spent 8 years in France, she still didn't understand the idea of voting. She's not a child, she's a grown woman who appears to have given up her intellect to her husband, so the chances of her changing her ways and assimilating are slim to none.

Modern nation-states are all about promoting a particular national identity that everyone can support. Their ideas are the polar opposite of this woman's. The French people's concern is promoting their idea of feminism, and if it's at the expense of non-feminists like this woman, so be it. One less to deal with in their society is all the better. Like others said, the French have the right to reject whomever they want, and I really don't blame them for rejecting her.

France, a feminist nation? Don't make me laugh. It's definitely not Saudi, but it's got miles to go before it could call itself a feminist nation with a straight face. And this is not a step forward.

Just another reason to dislike France and its primitive secular chauvinism. No wonder France was polled as the most racist nation in Europe. Its all too easy to claim tolerance when everyone in society looks and does the same things, until the "other" shows up. Drugs, hookers, degenerates, feminists, no problems, hijab or niqab, no way. Guys like munna always make me chuckle with their inferiority complex laden eagerness to please bigots. Brown sahibs like have no conception of civil rights.
Nobody in their mind would integrate into such racist and backward culture.

DrM, then advise those people to leave France and settle in an islamic state. Why do you want to insult and criticise France. Let me tell you that France is a more tolerant country that you can imagine. It has deteriorated in the years gone by by people like you with these attitudes.
There is so much you can tolerate.
You talk about drug hookers etc. Who are the drug barons?They mostly come from islamist country.
Get a life Dr M.
Allah Afiz

I have to admit, from a U.S. perspective, with the limited information I have from a newspaper article (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/19/world/europe/19france.html), I think the action of the French state is unjustified. Note this article refers to Ms. Faiza Silmi, not Ms. Faiza Mabchur, as Dr. Rafia does here.

Both Jakey ("But it is important to understand that in addition to how it is being used as a scapegoat, it is also a real issue that provokes real, legitimate fear (not just politicized fear!!) in many citizens of Europe.") and Nakia ("Women walking around with their face and body completely shrouded in black is often frightening to people not accustomed to such clothing.") referred to some segment of the population's fear as something to be accommodated and coddled. At some point, the majority has to get over its irrational fear. In the United States, for example, see the reaction of large swathes of white America to Michelle Obama, which reflects their continued fear of African-Americans. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/18/AR2008071802557.html)

We in the U.S. should not forget about how things like poll taxes and "literacy" tests were used to deny African-Americans voting rights.

In addition, why do I want the state to evaluate religious practice? The NY Times article quotes Ms. Faiza:

“They say I am under my husband’s command and that I am a recluse,” Ms. Silmi said during an hourlong conversation in her apartment in La Verrière, a small town 30 minutes by train from Paris. At home, when no men are present, she lifts her facial veil and exposes a smiling, heart-shaped face.

“They say I wear the niqab because my husband told me so,” she said. “I want to tell them: It is my choice. I take care of my children, and I leave the house when I please. I have my own car. I do the shopping on my own. Yes, I am a practicing Muslim, I am orthodox. But is that not my right?”

She speaks French fluently. She seeks medical care. She's a functioning person. Her kids are not in any danger. She has not broken any laws.

Finally, do posters here think this state evaluation would stop at women's clothing?

From the NY Times article: "M’hammed Henniche, of the Union of Muslim Associations in the Seine-St.-Denis district north of Paris, says he fears that the French ruling may open the door to what he considers ever more arbitrary interpretations of what constitutes “radical” Islam.

“What is it going to be tomorrow?” he asked. “The annual pilgrimage to Mecca? The daily prayer?

“This sets a dangerous precedent,” he said. “Religion, so far as it is personal, should be kept out of these decisions.”"

Ayman, I was not the one who made the comment about hijab and/or niqab causing fear. That was Sarah3.

>DrM, then advise those people to leave France and settle in an islamic state. <

Rubbish. Your inferiority complex it showing again, munna. Guys like you have never fought got anything in your life so like the lanky little brown sahib you side with those hypocrites in power.
Why should citizens of the state leave? Some "democracy" this is. More like secular dictatorship demanding everyone be a carbon copy of the white native population. Its not happening. Using your illogic, civil rights would never have become law, oh but Europe has never had a civil rights movement has it? Its all too easy to claim tolerance when everyone in society looks and does the same things, until the "other" shows up.


>Why do you want to insult and criticise France. Let me tell you that France is a more tolerant country that you can imagine.<

France is the most racist country in Europe, its secular fanaticism deserves condemnation. This garbage has been going on since 1989, not that you know anything about that or care. Read the data and weep.

>You talk about drug hookers etc. Who are the drug barons?They mostly come from islamist country.
Get a life Dr M.<

There is no such thing as an "Islamist," twit. Islamist is up there with jihadist and now wahhabist. Totally stupid meaningless word that attempts to Anglicize an Arabic word, advertise it as intellectual and with deep meaning while actually only superficially pretending to bypass the connotations that are invariably associated with it by its religious context. In reality, it's those connotations and the religious context which are being manipulated to put the religion of Islam in new, hateful, bigoted, misrepresented terminology. You really shouldn't comment because you simply don't know what your babbling about.
Stick to bollywood and leave the discussion to the adults.

DrM, all of this 'little brown sahib' talk is frankly derrogatory, if not racist. Will you be using terms like "Uncle Tom" soon?

I disagree with all of your comments here, though that's not a big problem. But you're simply rude, as evidenced by the following in your last post, "You really shouldn't comment because you simply don't know what your babbling about. Stick to bollywood and leave the discussion to the adults."

As for your comment about France that, "nobody in their [right] mind would integrate into such racist and backward culture," I guess this means that you think that all of the muslim immigrants to France are not in their right minds. They must all just be crazy or they'd never leave their home countries. Is that your logic? That is what your words indicate.

>DrM, all of this 'little brown sahib' talk is frankly derrogatory, if not racist. Will you be using terms like "Uncle Tom" soon?<

Its not racist to call an apple an apple, or a Brown Sahib, or Uncle Tom what they truly are.

>I disagree with all of your comments here, though that's not a big problem. But you're simply rude, as evidenced by the following in your last post, "You really shouldn't comment because you simply don't know what your babbling about. Stick to bollywood and leave the discussion to the adults."<

What a laughable exercise in projection. Its funny how you and your ilk can rant and rage about woman not dressing the way you European racists want them too, yet I'm the one who's being "rude" for not entertaining these childish tantrums and xenophobic garbage. Get over yourself and quit lying. Muslims aren't imposing anything on you or threatening the state, we're practicing our faith, and if you're too paranoid and bigoted to accept that, that's too bad for you.
As I said before, its all too easy make self-congratulatory claims of tolerance when everyone in society looks and acts in the same way. Its only when the "other" emerges that your true face is revealed.

>As for your comment about France that, "nobody in their [right] mind would integrate into such racist and backward culture," I guess this means that you think that all of the muslim immigrants to France are not in their right minds. They must all just be crazy or they'd never leave their home countries. Is that your logic? That is what your words indicate.<

You don't get it. They tried everything, but they've realized that they will never be accepted in society which is fundamentally racist. Hell, people have changed their names to fit in and they're still languishing in the unemployment line while their children are being ostrasized and thrown out of schools, banks, hospitals for wearing head scarves. Bravo! Its funny how a person can be too black, too brown, too Muslim, but they can never be white enough.
White Europeans cannot allow Muslims to be different in the way that they love to believe they are different (barbaric, women hating savages with values that "are incompatible with our own") but at the same time cannot abide the idea that Muslims are actually like everyone else. It's a hypocritical position born of a need to feel superior which expresses itself through discrimination by people who at the same time self-righteously lecture the Muslims they are victimizing about "enlightened values."
Bottom line is Europe is a backward and racist continent, home to Nazism, fascism, and practically every totalitarian ideology we've had the misfortune of seeing and experiencing.

Yes, Nakia, I mistakenly attributed Sarah3's quote to you. Sorry!
Ayman

In any free society, the niqaab is a choice exercised.

Denying her citizenship is worse than denying her recourse to the law if her rights were denied. Because denying her citizenship denies her access to that law.

Its a court decision, and like ridiculous notions in law/fiqh, the rule will come and go as a necessity of social interaction.

To ever expect a westerner to absorb into non-western society or abide by the social codes of the law of another society .. is unthinkable. They would never "stoop" to our level.

ummmm Nakia and Ayman - I'm surprised you made this mistake twice...that wasn't my quote, it was Dakota's. Let's try to be more careful when quoting others. Thanks.

yes, I'm guilty twice. Apologies to Nakia and Sarah3! Where's the emoticon for egg on face? Ayman

Vive la France! Down with the Burqas! I hope Muslim women join me in the chant! If American women could burn bras to show thier independence, why can't Muslim women tear up the shrouds they wear and proclaim freedom? Oh I forgot! They are went to the mosque/madressa and got brainwashed by the mullah!

Weisskop, I totally admire your comments. I spent three hours in a shopping Mall today and i saw so many muslim women dressed modern, sexy and provocative too and i am sure this goes with what you have expresed here man!
vive la diferrence!!