This article does not point to how dangerous it is to allow free actions of the islamic religion. It want's to take over the world, and every muslim knows this, including the author.

Debbie: suggest you read the article before making cheap cracks about "racism"
France has three "african origin" women in senior
ministerial positions.
How man black or muslim women are senators or ministers in the Bush regime.
France has many faults, thanks to 25 years of neo marxist government, but doesn't needs lessons in "anti racism" from the US

"The recent decision of the Conseil d’État, essentially a body of decision making in the interest of the French state — not the people."

I will not attempt to argue with this well written, clever and mistaken article ~

as an american resident of france for the last 4 decades
I can tell the author, unequivically, that if the issue had been submitted "democraticly" to the french people it would have been more severely treated by a large majority.
A democratic state can also protect the nation from whims and prejudices of a momentary majority.
An example : abolition of the death penalty against the wishes of a substantial majority of the population:
would the author have the french restore the guillotine in the name of his definition of "democracy" ??

to RH MAYO
Well, this debate is in English and in an American "newspaper" and blog, i.e. in the West. Ditto for France!

to NINA
It all depends whether the host country advertises itself to be a tolerant, open-minded and each-to-his-own kind of country, as the article mentions the motto of Equality, Liberty and........., or just whatever?
Countries like Iran or Saudi Arabia or other Gulf countries, etc. do not pretend that they are open or liberal. Same for Turkey that insists on lifting the veil and does not let students go to university if they wear a simple headscarf (as some how, what is on the head is more important than what is in the head for Turks). But for example, if you go to, say, Lebanon or Egypt or Syria... where there are people that wear the veil and also some that do not, no body and certainly the system does not care and it is not a criteria for accepting or rejecting you as a citizen.

My response is more of a question, I suppose. If I immigrated to a country whose beliefs differed than mine, say a country where women are forced to wear a veil by custom (not law), would I be allowed citizenship if I refused to wear a veil?
It's possible that new coverage in the US and Europe is one-sided, but I do believe the intolerance goes both ways. It seems to me lately that I'm supposed to change the way I act in order to not offend many, but the many do not have to change the way they act in order to not offend me.
For example, in countries where it is our custom to use satirical cartoons about every subject and leader to call our attention to issues, we are expected to not draw satirical cartoons about Muhammed, the prophet of Islam, for fear of offending them. So, we are expected to change our way of life to avoid giving offense.
For most women raised in Europe and the US, seeing a woman veiled is offensive. We have fought long and hard to have our status in society raise it seems ever so slightly along with our wages and job opportunities. But does Islam care about the offense given to us? I'm sure many have never even thought that it might be offensive to western women to see any woman veiled by dictates of a religion.

How petty and closed minded the world is becoming. This decision sounds like something that would come from our government. Our lazy, incurious, dumber than hair president and his gang of chicken littles have demonized Muslims for seven years. With all the wolf crying they've done I'm surprised something like this hasn't become policy for newcomers. The mouthbreathers in the Republican party want to declare English our national language and Chrisianity our national religion. Can a national dress code be far behind? Perhaps they'll have everyone wear brown shirts and those who are from elsewhere can maybe sew an M on theirs so we can tell without the wierd foriegn clothes that they are foreigners. You know just to keep the HOMELAND white and safe from those others.

why then in Iran must i conform to the local laws as prescribed by the state. If I can assimilate there maintaining my own beliefs and practices, yet be given all the rights of a citizen, then it is possible to have a reasonable conversation. You cannot have a reasonable debate by tying one parties hands behind their back while the other has both hands open. The short answer is that this debate is possible only in the west and nowhere else.

Ali, I agree with you.

The French Government's decision defies the Logic of Democracy. If President Sarkozy has such a myopic view, how can he change his nation and this world into a democratic “community”?

This will bring another media frenzy about his personal life that contradicts and defies all democratic values in which the world believes.

We all need to cool our heads and find ways and common ground to form a cohesive dialogue. The confrontational approach has no future.

Ali Ettefagh
Le cause celebre es debutante a la demode, oui?

If you are in France live in the French way.
Adieu

David and Fareed,

Isn't there anything else about which to comment?

Here are all these high powered commentators being used to address an issue that is less important than whether a black kid in Louisiana will be arrested for wearing his pants too low.

Yawn

@PetitPiteux

If you think wearing clothes depicts radical religious practice, then you are missing the point. The main issue is, and must be, whether or not some one is against civilised ways in a society.
There are a billion muslims in the world and at least 50% of them dress like bin Laden...but that does not mean they accept bin Laden's violent methods, does it?

Secondly, it is stupid to put this person up to prove a negative. In other words, she is not required to prove that she is not an extremist, just because she dresses a particular way. Putting that in a "western" format, should every woman in a revealing dress (or with a sleazy appearance) be assumed to be a bad person socially (say, a prostitute or .....)?
How many catholic priests, for example, abused children...even though they are in a respectable dress?

Finally, she has indicated that she has no interest in voting, for example, or that she submits to her husband's wishes. About 1/3 of all voters do not vote in most "western" democracies. The choice of not voting does not equate to being refused the right to vote--especially as her husband and children are French citizens and they pay taxes and live in compliance with French laws.

This is the beginning of Apartheid mentality. The majority cannot force a minority to behave in the way they wish, even though this Muslim-phobia story is sweeping northern Europe.

i dont care about muslims in France. France is not a muslim country.

About Burka and citizenship i think it is very logical and very good idea. Not so long time ago german muslims forced thier wifes to wear a scarf because their mousque got money from conservative arabian and iranian organisations. and their children got some "education" in new mousqes payed by same organisations. it was nothing about culture and ilamic traditions. it was just bussiness as usual. German court forced to ban scarf in shools and goverment buildings. same was done for Cross in a shool classes.

Germany was plauged by Colonia Califate. defacto state in a state. i think it is no wounder when french start to close the door to people who are not interested in France and their people.

To all, with all due respects, please be sure of the facts your are commenting before being outraged:

-it's not about residence but citizenship. She is and will be living in france with her family; the question of illegal migrants and they being forcefully kicked out the the country is completely unrelated.

-it's not about enforcing a way of life. As long a the french law is respected, she can dress and behave as she wish. Even with our new president, Frence can still be considered a fairly free country...

-She wasn't refused citizenship because of wearing the burqua, but because of "radical practice of her religion, incompatible with french values". The burqua is part of that practice, but what motivated the decision is the whole of them, not just the burqa.

So all in all it's rather less dramatic than depicted: its about her (or her husband for her) wish to become a french citizen, which is a symbolic choice and not just a material one. While any is or should be allowed to live in the gps coordinates that happens to be called france, wanting to become a french citizen is a rather heavy choice which include some respect of the values that country is (supposed to be) based on...

The French court has gone too far by forcing a split in a family of a French citizen husband and a non-citizen wife by forcing the wife to change her behaviour. Dressing in a certain way does not mean being violent, radical or rejectable. It reminds me of the same logic of forcing Jews to wear the yello Star of David in Nazi Germany to point them out specfically.

It is also stupid to point out people's dress as grounds for being "bad". In a modern, globalised world we must learn to live together and respect each other's beliefs even if we cannot agree.

For those that have commented below without having knowledge or enough background on the fact, the applicant is married to a French citizen and has 3 children who are all French citizens. The family pays French taxes, like all other people in France. She is reported to have command of the French language.
But she is well within her rights to dress as she wants or think as she wants. There has been no report that she is active in violent terrorism or criminal activity (which is the civilised red line in most societies).

But labelled as radical or intolerant because of her thoughts and the way she dresses or her religion? How tolerant is the decision of the French Council of State? Afterall France boasts to have a wide political spectrum and co-existence is the central theme in Europe. The subject applicant does not boast to be any of that, just herself and her thoughts and beliefs....which ought to be OK so long as it is not violent.

A comment made elsewhere on this topic by a Moroccan Muslim living in Morocco is helpful in interpreting the illogic of Ali Ettefagh's commentary.

S. Amar of Morocco stated that Moroccan women do not commonly wear a burqa. Amar attributes the display of the burqa to a particularly political and intolerant form of Islam that the majority of Moroccans have rejected.

If Amar's assertion is correct, then French immigration magistrates were within their rights to deny citizenwhip to the Moroccan immigrant. She did fail to show that she had assimilated into French national culture.

No immigrant has the right to enter a host country and recreate the socio-political system of the "old country." That is colonization, not immigration.

French citizens deserve to be protected from foreign colonization, including American.

clever and clear observations. people cannot be forced to behave differently.