Religious freedom vs. coercive secularism

French applaud decision to deny woman citizenship over veil

If you want to be able to express your religion through dress, you shouldn’t expect citizenship.  I’m not French, so I am not as sympathetic to the notion that the original culture of one seeking citizenship should be completely eschewed in favor of that of one’s adopted country.  (Can one even say that there is one French culture?)  But this is apparently what was recently expressed to a Muslim woman from Morocco that sought citizenship in France because her husband is French.  So are the three children that she has born since her arrival around 2000.

The Council of State, the country’s highest administrative court, said the woman’s acquiescence to the veil showed her failure to assimilate and demonstrated behaviour “incompatible with the essential values of the French community and, notably, the principle of equality of the sexes.”

The article posits that the woman’s French husband forces her to cover, and that she had attended meetings with government officials in a robe and veil that had only an eye slit.  It cites as one of the stronger positions against granting citizenship that of a woman named Fadéla Amara, “the Algerian-born junior minister for urban affairs and a founder of a Muslim women’s group, Ni Putes Ni Soumises (with translates as the provocative Neither Whores Nor Submissives), that fought successfully to ban the veil in French public schools four years ago”:

Like the veil, the niqab is a coercive means to oppress women, she [said]. “It’s not a sign of religiosity, but the visible expression of a totalitarian position.”

While I might agree with Amara on the significance of the veil, I find outright rejection of it by certain parties on behalf of all citizens a bit odd.  Same when they do it in Turkey – although their citizens only have to remove covering in public buildings such as schools.  You know, like in France.  Aren’t both of these examples of coercive secularism?  Or does such a thing even exist?

If France wants to take on inequalities and injustices through enforcing laws of equal opportunity, that makes sense.  But wearing niqab in this situation is a highly personal choice and a matter to be sorted between the couple.  Refusing to reject the naqib should not be grounds for denial of citizenship.

The article goes on to say that the couple’s religious affiliation was not grounds for rejection of the application, but her ignorance of French life was.  In addition to donning naqib, the woman appears to not stray very far from home.  The word “cloistered” was used.  OK, so she stays at home because her religion and her husband want her to, and she doesn’t go out to vote?  I don’t believe that these habits are the best idea, but I still think there are more appropriate tools out there.

Does France truly believe that granting citizenship to a minority that wear niqab or other variations of covering will change the national character more than France itself has changed, oh I don’t know, Basque culture?  The only difference here is that the French government has the power to deny access to would-be citizens (the Basque territory was taken over during the French Revolution).  Will they allow “Madame M” to remain in-country indefinitely as a permanent resident?  If so, what is the difference between her presence as such and her presence as a citizen?  If not, in the end, the result of the French government’s efforts will less likely be successful prevention of cultural norms that are probably no threat to the dominant culture anyway, and more likely will be the breakup of a family that may be forcefully separated when Madame M’s chances run out.