This is what I called a Radical Behavior and Intolerance against the Immigrant.!!!!!!!!!!








France denies citizenship to veiled Muslim woman.

The case started quietly, when a Muslim woman who sheaths herself in a head-to-toe veil was denied French citizenship because she had not assimilated enough into this society. France's highest body upheld the decision, and politicians across the spectrum agreed it was the right move.


A few dissenting voices, though, are now questioning whether the decision pushed France's secularist values too far.

"Where does it begin or end? What we are calling radical behavior?" asked Mohammed Bechari, president of the National Federation of French Muslims. "Will we see a man refused citizenship because of the length of his beard ... or a man who is dressed as a rabbi, or a priest?"

On June 27, France's highest administrative body, the Council of State, ruled that the woman, identified only as Faiza X, had "adopted a radical practice of her religion incompatible with the essential values of the French community, notably with the principle of equality of the sexes, and therefore she does not fulfill the conditions of assimilation" listed in the country's Civil Code as a requirement for gaining French citizenship.

The council said the decision to refuse her citizenship did not aim to "attack (her) freedom of religion."

But critics accuse the French justice system of breeding fear and intolerance of Islam under the guise of upholding secularism. The country is home to western Europe's largest Muslim population, estimated to be at least 5 million of the nation's 63 million people - and growing.

French officialdom has struggled to instill secular traditions in Muslim immigrant communities, passing a law in 2004 barring the Islamic headscarf and other highly visible religious symbols from public schools. Proponents of that law welcomed the decision denying citizenship to Faiza X, who wears a niqab, or full-body veil, to her meetings with immigration officials.

"The burqa, it's a prison, a straitjacket," France's minister for urban affairs, Fadela Amara, herself born to Algerian parents, was quoted as saying.

The terms burqa and niqab are often used interchangeably in France, though the former refers to a full-body covering worn largely in Afghanistan with only a mesh screen over the eyes. An official state document said the woman wore a full-body niqab, which left her eyes uncovered.

"It is not a religious sign but the visible sign of a totalitarian political project preaching inequality between the sexes, and which carries within it the total absence of democracy," Amara was quoted as saying in the daily Le Parisien.

Amara told the paper she hoped extremists would get a strong message from the Council of State's ruling, which upheld immigration officials' refusal to grant citizenship to Faiza X.

The council's ruling did not refer to Faiza's niqab, which she said she adopted after arriving in France from her native Morocco, according to a report from a government commissioner to the Council.

The woman told immigration officials that she did not know anything about secularism or her right to vote, according to the commissioner's report. All the immigration officials handling her case were women. They asked her to remove her veil to identify herself, which she did only when no men were in the room, the report said.

Later, in a letter to immigration officials, the woman defended her lifestyle by noting that other immigrants granted French citizenship also maintain "ties with their culture of origin."

The woman and her husband told immigration officials that they adhere to Salafism, a strict strain of Islam.

Her statements to immigration officials indicate that "she leads a life almost of a recluse, cut off from French society," leaving the house only to walk with her children or visit relatives, the report said.

"She lives in total submission to the men in her family ... and the idea of contesting this submission doesn't even occur to her," the government report said.

Politicians on talk shows this week spoke out in support of the ruling. But Muslim groups had mixed reactions.

Mohammed Moussaoui, head of the moderate French Council for Muslim Communities, issued a cautious statement that did not come out strongly for or against the ruling. He said only that his group "rejects all forms of extremism and stigmas that would keep the Muslim component of the nation's society from living its spirituality in peace."

But Fouad Alaoui, vice president of the Union of Islamic Organizations of France, said, "It's a turning point in our judiciary that should make us think.

"I don't think that clothing is part of this country's values. Clothing is personal freedom."
Then he added, "On a personal level, I too am disturbed when I see a woman hide her face.

Discrimination in the Name of Integration in Netherlands.




These measures keep families apart and appear to be aimed at keeping certain kinds of people out of the Netherlands. However, in the past few years a growing anti-immigrant attitude has grown in the Netherlands, fuelled by mistrust and fears about global terrorism.

The Netherlands should abolish the overseas “integration test” that discriminatorily targets only migrants of certain nationalities trying to join their families, while citizens from other, “western” countries are exempt, Human Rights Watch said in a briefing paper released today. People of Moroccan and Turkish origin – two of the three largest “non-western” migrant communities in the Netherlands – have been especially affected.
In the 44-page briefing paper, “Discrimination in the Name of Integration, Migrants’ Rights Under the Integration Abroad Act,”,Human Rights Watch offers an analysis of the Dutch overseas integration test in light of the Netherlands’ international human rights obligations.
Human Rights Watch found that people of Moroccan and Turkish origin are especially affected, while citizens from “western” countries such as Canada, Australia, and Japan are exempt. “The overseas integration test is discriminatory because it explicitly applies only to relatives from predominantly ‘non-western countries,’” said Holly Cartner, Europe and Central Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “These measures keep families apart and appear to be aimed at keeping certain kinds of people out of the Netherlands.”

Over the past several years, the Netherlands has introduced a series of measures with the stated aim of better integrating its migrant population. Besides an exam that is taken by migrants in the Netherlands, another measure is the integration test under the Integration Abroad Act. In force since March 2006, the act requires certain would-be family migrants to pass the test in their country of origin before they can join spouses or family members in the Netherlands. Under this integration test, applicants must demonstrate basic knowledge of the Dutch language and basic concepts of Dutch society before they enter the Netherlands. The test is administered in Dutch by telephone to the applicant sitting at a computer at the Dutch embassy or consulate in the applicant’s home country. If the candidate fails the telephone test, the person will have to take the exam again and pay the examination fee of €350 each time the test is taken. Recently, the government decided to make the overseas integration test tougher by raising the pass mark
The impact of the test, coupled with increased financial requirements applicable to all migrants, has fallen primarily on those wanting to join family members from two of the three largest “non-western” migrant communities in the Netherlands – Moroccans and Turks.

There has been a significant reduction in the number of applications for family reunification and formation since the introduction of the test, and applications from Turkey and Morocco in particular have fallen significantly. Exempted from the test are citizens from the European Union (EU), the European Economic Area (EEA), Switzerland, Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, South Korea, and the US. “It sends the message that certain groups are not welcome,” said Cartner. “And it risks alienating these communities instead of facilitating their integration.” While international human rights law does not prohibit states from differentiating between citizens and non-citizens in immigration policies, states cannot discriminate on the basis of nationality or ethnicity (aside from a narrow exception for EU citizens) even in this sphere. Dutch authorities would need extremely powerful reasons to justify the clear difference in treatment between different nationalities in the application of this test. The briefing paper concludes that the legitimate objective to better integrate all migrants cannot be met by a test that only some migrants trying to join their families are required to take, and from which others are exempted simply because of their nationality.
A general exemption for persons from a number of countries is contrary to the alleged aim of the Integration Abroad Act, namely that all migrants should have a basic level of integration before arrival and that the test helps the ongoing integration once the person is in the Netherlands. The paper shows that no sufficient evidence has been put forward to adequately explain why for nationals of some countries, the integration program in the Netherlands is deemed sufficient for integration, and no overseas test is required. The main argument put forward to explain this distinction in treatment is that the countries exempt from the test are similar to the Netherlands in their socio-economic and political development. The government has argued that exempting western countries would not lead to unwanted immigration and problems with integration in Dutch society.

This suggests that reducing immigration, especially from certain countries, and not just achieving integration, was actually a main reason for the legislation. “No strong evidence has been given to show that the level of a country’s development is a reliable indicator of the capacity or willingness of a potential immigrant to integrate,” said Cartner.

The test and financial burden, which restrict family reunification, undermine the right to family life and Netherland’s obligation to give all residents the right to marry and start a family. There is an increasing tendency by other EU member states to follow the Dutch approach on compulsory integration measures in the country of origin. “The Netherlands is a leading model for other EU states on integration issues,” said Cartner. “Developing an effective approach to integration, that does not discriminate on the basis of nationality and is fully consistent with international human rights law, would also serve as a positive example for other European states.”