Harleyman Posted February 3, 2010 Share Posted February 3, 2010 A man in France has been denied French citizenship, the reason being that he forced his wife to wear the burkha. Good for the French! If immigrants aspire to become citizens of France then it's better they learn what "libertie, egalitie, fraternitie" mean in the full sense of those words Integrate or emigrate (back to wherever) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted February 3, 2010 Share Posted February 3, 2010 A man in France has been denied French citizenship, the reason being that he forced his wife to wear the burkha. Good for the French! If immigrants aspire to become citizens of France then it's better they learn what "libertie, egalitie, fraternitie" mean in the full sense of those words Integrate or emigrate (back to wherever) But does wearing a burka mean you dont want to integrate anymore than someone who wears a habit or football shirt? Ps: Im assuming the man was prevented from obtaining citizenship because of his demands or was it because the French didnt like what his wife was wearing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kthebean Posted February 3, 2010 Share Posted February 3, 2010 A man in France has been denied French citizenship, the reason being that he forced his wife to wear the burkha. Good for the French! If immigrants aspire to become citizens of France then it's better they learn what "libertie, egalitie, fraternitie" mean in the full sense of those words Integrate or emigrate (back to wherever) There is a difference between - penalising or punishing an individual for forcing someone else to do something against their will and - penalising or punishing an individual for their choice of clothes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted February 3, 2010 Share Posted February 3, 2010 I had understood the point well, boyfriday, Yes Im sure you did L00b, but there are others who wouldnt have wanted to. but the fact of the matter is, this would still be perceived (in the grand scheme of things) as the lesser of the two evils: 'inconvenience' the minority to 'safeguard' the majority.. ..but who will it be perceived in that way by? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted February 3, 2010 Share Posted February 3, 2010 But does wearing a burka mean you dont want to integrate anymore than someone who wears a habit or football shirt? From what I understand in this particular case the man forced his wife to wear the burkha rather than give her the choice of dress so her basic freedoms under French law were violated by her husband Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted February 3, 2010 Share Posted February 3, 2010 Using the opposite extreme, we don't have the freedom to walk around in public naked. ..and we never have done, that's why it's accepted, however if we had and the law was suddenly changed to criminalise it, you can imagine people would be bearing their bottoms at police officers over it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted February 3, 2010 Share Posted February 3, 2010 From what I understand in this particular case the man forced his wife to wear the burkha rather than give her the choice of dress so her basic freedoms under French law were violated by her husband Well that's a great result, the French were supporting the woman's freedom to wear what she wanted and I would support the British government if they acted similarly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted February 3, 2010 Share Posted February 3, 2010 Well that's a great result, the French were supporting the woman's freedom to wear what she wanted and I would support the British government if they acted similarly. And what a tragedy it is that apparently they dont Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted February 3, 2010 Share Posted February 3, 2010 ..but who will it be perceived in that way by?On the advice of its intelligence departments, the government. Which, any day of the week, would rather get mildly pricked for roughing up some liberal ideals (all well founded as they may be), than badly stung for failing to prevent acts of terrorism (all hypothetical as they may be). As always, a question of balancing risk assessment against political fallout. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted February 3, 2010 Share Posted February 3, 2010 On the advice of its intelligence departments, the government. Which, any day of the week, would rather get mildly pricked for roughing up some liberal ideals (all well founded as they may be), than badly stung for failing to prevent acts of terrorism (all hypothetical as they may be). As always, a question of balancing risk assessment against political fallout. Well hopefully their view will never prevail, since it won't help one jot in making the world a safer place to live in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now