Thursday, July 17, 2008

Ruling On Burqas

The story of the woman denied French citizenship because she wears the burqa made headlines in the French and English media. If you did not read about it, here are a few excerpts from The Telegraph:

The legal ruling, which has just been published, is the first time a Muslim applicant had been rejected by France due to their religious practices.

The unnamed 32-year-old woman is married to a French national. She arrived in the country in 2000, speaks good French and her three children were born in the country.

She wears a black burqa that covers all her body except her eyes, which are visible through a narrow slit, and lives in "total submission" to her husband and male relatives, according to reports by social services. (...)

"She has adopted a radical practice of her religion, incompatible with essential values of the French community, particularly the principle of equality of the sexes," said a ruling by the Council of State seen by Le Monde newspaper.

The Council of State is a judicial body which has the final say on disputes between individuals and the public administration. (...)

In the past, nationality was denied to Muslims who were known to have links with extremist circles or who had publicly advocated radicalism, which is not the case in this instance. (...)

Read the whole article

The French-language version was in Le Monde.

However, more interesting than the story are the reactions to it. While no nationalist condemns the court for denying her citizenship, most question the import and effect such a decision will have on the immigration issue as a whole. Rather than an opening salvo in the war on immigration, they see it as an isolated incident possibly without consequence.

Jean-Marie Le Pen remarked:

The Front National is pleased with this decision, but it deplores the growing weight of immigration on the institutions of the country and the fact that today the courts are forced to rule on questions arising out of a heretofore unheard-of level of sectarianism in ethnic communities.

Le Conservateur
notes with irony the divide between the media and the Council of State:

At last a decision that takes us in the right direction! And yet, the evening news on TF1 recently pointed out, in a report favorable to Islamists, that "the prejudices regarding the veil are disappearing in French society." Those scoundrels in the Council of State with their prejudices!

Now we await the expulsion of this woman. Indeed, most of our public services and social benefits not being based on nationality, it will be up to the French Republic to carry the judgment, that emanated from the mouth of the Council of State, to its logical conclusion.

However it is Joachim Véliocas at Islamisation who takes an entirely negative view of the court ruling, though "realistic" may be a better word:

The case that is currently creating so much chatter, about a certain Faiza M., a Moroccan woman who was refused French nationality by the Council of State, is laughable.

Out of 150,000 annual "frivolous" naturalizations, tens of thousands of them are of veiled women. All you have to do is go into any prefect's office in Ile-de-France to witness the long lines waiting for naturalization or residency cards, eloquent proof of the abundance of Islamic veils (hijab).

Note: Hijab refers only to the head covering. Burqa covers the entire face and body.

Having had an opportunity to see, in Paris, one of the main centers of instruction for aspiring French nationals made compulsory by Nicolas Sarkozy's second law on immigration, I was able verify their identities.

At 27 rue de Fontarabie, in the 20th arrondissement, the courtyard of the building where these ridiculous training sessions of the French Republic take place, affords a view of the bay windows of the classrooms where veiled women watch as the "powerpoints" on the values of the "Republican Pact" are explained one by one. This will allow them to have their French identity card after 4 years of marriage to a "French" spouse.

According to the Stefanini parliamentary report, 90,000 marriages are between a French national and a foreigner. In other words, one out of three. Marriage is one of the main sources of immigration. If it's enough to swap your burqa for a hijab during the interview with the government commissioner, that is not an insurmountable obstacle for Salafists. (...)

No. The attitude of the Council of State, affecting a tiny minority of Muslim women, does not satisfy us. And it is all the more scandalous because the husband who, according to the press, forces his wife to wear the burqa, and who is by his own admission a Salafist, keeps his French nationality!

By way of illustration Véliocas posts a picture of seven French mothers receiving a special award in the city of Epinal. The award honors those mothers who have had to overcome serious difficulties. Out of the seven only one is French. Five are wearing veils. I had posted this photo and the accompanying article a year ago.

The comments at Le Salon Beige for the most part applaud the Council of State's ruling, though some warn against rejoicing too soon. One person suspects there will be repercussions from MRAP, the "civil rights" organization, that monitors "racism".

Sure enough, there are repercussions, not from MRAP but from its closely-related CFCM (French Council on the Muslim Faith), as reported by Le Figaro:

According to the CFCM:

"The Council of State did not specify what it meant by 'a radical practice of religion'. This leaves the door open to all interpretations," declared Mohammed Moussaoui, president of the CFCM. "They might have said, for example, that in the social conduct of this woman there was an incompatibility with the principle of equality of the sexes, without using the term 'religious practice'. That would have eliminated the ambiguity," he added.

Apparently Le Salon Beige agrees with him:

He isn't wrong: if in fact the Council of State starts judging on its own what is or isn't a radical practice of religion, the door is open to all forms of abuse. Islam must be fought because of the social-political attitudes it creates, such as subjugation of women, polygamy, wearing the burqa, etc...

Note: In other words Islam cannot be fought on religious grounds at all? I'm not sure I agree. Furthermore someone has to define what "radical practice of religion" means. It is not the wearing of the burqa alone, but the installation of sharia and above all the jihad - the conquest of the host countries through the steady infiltration of the institutions and the spread of the religion through the building of mosques. Of course this is not the only aspect, but doesn't everything derive from the jihad + sharia? Islam is a conquering political ideology, welded to a religion. They cannot be separated, so some references to religion have to be made. The authors of Le Salon Beige are afraid, I think, that if there is a definition of "radical practice of religion" then it could be turned onto French Catholics and used against them. But whoever defines these terms has to distinguish between Islam and Catholicism, and not throw them into the same category, the way anti-Semitism and "Islamophobia" are lumped together as equivalents. There is nothing wrong with defending Catholicism, when it is the spiritual basis of your country, and condemning Islam, when it threatens your country. They are not equivalent.

Labels: , , , , ,


At July 17, 2008 12:20 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hi Tibere,

J'ai decouvert recemment ce blog qui pourrait figurer dans votre liste de liens. Désolé d'utiliser ce biais je n'ai pas trouvé votre mail.
Je lis ce site depuis le premier article sans avoir jamais participé (pas le courage de commenter en anglais). Merci pour ce travail de reinformation en anglais :-) Luc

At July 17, 2008 10:10 PM, Blogger tiberge said...

@ anonymous,

Thank you for the link to 2020-2080. I read the lead article on Fontenay. It's very depressing. How do we get a State to reverse course? How do we inform the populations that everything they've been force-fed by the media and the schools on racism, tolerance, repentance, etc... was false and a deliberate attempt by the State to destroy the nation?

The story of Fontenay shows some resistance on the part of the inhabitants, but only after things had gotten to the point of no return.

Once a nation sets itself on a suicidal path it cannot admit its errors, so it goes all the way to suicide (this is what you call "jusqauboutisme"). And as I said, I don't know why this is so, or how to reverse the course of history if people won't wake up.

I see that 2020-2080 has a link to Gaston Phébus. I don't know if you are familiar with that site, but it's worth a look. The lead article on the State is good, but so are the comments, especially the long one by someone called Robert Marchenoir.

You can comment anytime in French or English! It doesn't matter. Thanks.

At July 18, 2008 12:22 AM, Blogger said...
A Moral Question (Modified by myself.)
This test only has one question, but it's a very important one. By giving an honest answer, you will discover where you stand morally.

The test features an unlikely, completely fictional situation in which you will have to make a decision.

Remember that your answer needs to be honest, yet spontaneous.

Please scroll down slowly reading each line and give due consideration to each line.


You are in France, Paris to be specific.

There is chaos all around you caused by a hurricane with severe flooding.

This is a flood of biblical proportions.

You are a photo-journalist working for a major newspaper, and you're caught in the middle of this epic disaster. The situation is nearly hopeless.

You're trying to shoot career-making photos.

There are houses and people swirling around you, some disappearing into the water.

Nature is unleashing all its destructive fury.


Suddenly, you see a man in the water.

He is fighting for his life, trying not to be taken down with the debris.

You move closer... Somehow, the man looks familiar...
You suddenly realise who it is... It's Nicolas Sarkozy! You noticed that the raging waters are about to take him under forever. You have two options:

You can save the life of the President or you can shoot a dramatic Pulitzer Prize-winning photo, documenting the death of one of the country's most powerful men!


Here's the question, and please give an honest answer...

Would you select high contrast colour film, or would you go with the classic simplicity of black and white?

Posted as taken from An Anglo-Saxon Chronicle!

At July 18, 2008 2:12 AM, Blogger tiberge said...


Without hesitation I would choose black and white. It's much more effective in reporting natural disasters.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home