Bride’s Virginity a White Lie
| AR Articles on France |
|---|
| France Sets the Tone (Jun. 2002) |
| A Festival for France (Nov. 1998) |
| Nationalism on the March in France (Apr. 1998) |
| Search AmRen.com for France |
| More news stories on France |
The bride said she was a virgin. When her new husband discovered that was a lie, he went to court to annul the marriage—and a French judge agreed.
The ruling ending the Muslim couple’s union has stunned France and raised concerns the country’s much-cherished secular values are losing ground to cultural traditions from its fast-growing immigrant communities.
The decision also exposed the silent shame borne by some Muslim women who transgress long-held customs demanding proof of virginity on the wedding night.
In its ruling, the court concluded the woman had misrepresented herself as a virgin and that, in this particular marriage, virginity was a prerequisite.
But in treating the case as a breach of contract, the ruling was decried by critics who said it undermined decades of progress in women’s rights. Marriage, they said, was reduced to the status of a commercial transaction in which women could be discarded by husbands claiming to have discovered hidden defects in them.
The court decision “is a real fatwa against the emancipation and liberty of women. We are returning to the past,” said Urban Affairs Minister Fadela Amara, the daughter of immigrants from Muslim North Africa, using the Arabic term for a religious decree.
The outcry has been unrelenting since word of the April 1 decision in the closed-door trial in Lille was made public by the daily newspaper Liberation. In its judgment, the tribunal said the 2006 marriage had been ended based on “an error in the essential qualities” of the bride, “who had presented herself as single and chaste.”
Justice Minister Rachida Dati, whose parents also were born in North Africa, initially shrugged off the ruling—but the public clamour reached such a pitch that she asked the prosecutor’s office this week to lodge an appeal.
What began as a private matter “concerns all the citizens of our country and notably women,” a statement from her ministry said.
The hitch is that both the young woman and the man at the centre of the drama are opposed to an appeal, according to their lawyers. The names of the woman, a student in her 20s, and the man, an engineer in his 30s, have not been disclosed.
The young woman’s lawyer, Charles-Edouard Mauger, said she was distraught by the dragging out of the humiliating case. In an interview on Europe 1 radio, he quoted her as saying: “I don’t know who’s trying to think in my place. I didn’t ask for anything. . . . I wasn’t the one who asked for the media attention, for people to talk about it, and for this to last so long.”
The issue is particularly distressing for France because the government has fought to maintain strong secular traditions as demographics change. An estimated 5 million Muslims live in the country of 64 million, the largest Muslim population in Western Europe.
France passed a law in 2004 banning Muslim headscarves and other ostentatious religious signs from classrooms, a move that caused an uproar in the Muslim world.
Now, critics contend another law on the books is being used to effectively condone the custom requiring a woman to enter marriage as a virgin, and prove it with bloodstained sheets on her wedding night.
Article 180 of the Civil Code states that when a couple enters into a marriage, if the “essential qualities” of a spouse are misrepresented, then “the other spouse can seek the nullity of the marriage.” Past examples of marriages that were annulled include a husband found to be impotent and a wife who was a prostitute, according to attorney Xavier Labbee.
Ironically, Article 180 also guards against forced marriages.
Labbee, the lawyer for the bridegroom in question, says it was not the young woman’s virginity that was at issue.
“The question is not one of virginity. The question is one of lying,” he said.
“In the ruling, there is no word ‘Muslim,’ there is no word ‘religion,’ there is no word ‘custom.’ And if one speaks of virginity it is with the term ‘a lie.”
Labbee said both the man and the woman “understand that annulling the marriage is preferable to divorce because it wipes the slate clean (of) what you want to forget, but divorce wipes away nothing.”
Although divorced Muslim women are allowed to remarry, they are expected to be forthcoming with their new husband about the previous marriage, and divorce can carry a cultural stigma for women.
Indeed, the court ruling states that the woman “acquiesced” to the demand for an annulment “based on a lie concerning her virginity.”
“One can deduce that this quality (virginity) was seen by her as an essential quality that was decisive” in the man’s decision to marry, the ruling said.
Prime Minister Francois Fillon said an appeal must be lodged “so this ruling does not set a judicial precedent.” The appeal was filed on Tuesday and three judges could hear the case sometime this month, said Eric Vaillant of the appeals court in Douai, near Lille.
In a rare show of agreement, politicians on the left and right said the court’s action does not reflect French values.
“In a democratic and secular country, we cannot consider virginity as an essential quality of marriage,” said an expert on French secularism, Jacqueline Costa-Lascoux.
The decision underscored the painful predicament faced today by many Muslim women in France and elsewhere in the West who become sexually emancipated but remain bound by strict codes of honour inherited and enforced by their families—and prospective husbands.
It is not unusual for young Muslim women to procure fake virginity certificates, use tricks like vials of spilled blood on the wedding night or even undergo hymen repair to satisfy family expectations, and evade the shame that would follow if their secret got out.
A survey in 2006 found numerous private clinics in the Paris region where such surgery is performed, as well as doctors who supply fake virginity certificates before a marriage.
“Today, the judicial system of a modern country cannot hold to these savage traditions, completely inhuman for the young woman,” said the rector of the Paris Mosque, Dalil Boubakeur.
Like some others, Boubakeur, a moderate, voiced fears that Muslim fundamentalists would seek to profit from the Lille ruling “as they have done with the veil. . . . Fundamentalists use (head scarves) like their flag.”
“We ask Muslims to live in their era,” he said.
(Posted on June 9, 2008)
Comments
The bride lied and decieved her husband.
My bride lied to me too and years later when a child got sick with an inherited disease she fled because it was not my child.
The Court has it correct the bride lied and committed FRAUD.
The illegal aliens lie and commit fraud by presenting forged ID.
The thief lies by claiming stolen goods are his.
Lies and fraud cannot be permited in a country governed by laws or there is no trust and no real justice in that country.
Posted by Oldman at 6:43 PM on June 9
I have sympathy for the poor guy that was duped into believing that he was marrying an upright girl like himself, but ended finding out that she was a former slut.
I, too, require that my future-wife be a virgin, like myself, on our wedding night. I would divorce her in a split second if she lied about her virginity status to me.
Posted by T.M. at 6:46 PM on June 9
Marriage under false pretenses is usualy grounds for anullment. I see no problem with this court decision, but what this plaintiff has done by taking this case to court is admit that he never loved her.
She’s better off without him.
Posted by Michael C. Scott at 7:39 PM on June 9
Ah, yes. The joys of sharia law. Coming soon to a western country near you.
Posted by at 8:29 PM on June 9
i don’t have a problem with a cultural tradition requiring purity and virginity in a bride. White Mediterraneans often had very similar customs, including hanging the sheets out the window the morning after the wedding night, proving her virtue with the bloodstains.
A community that protects its women’s wombs takes its reproduction seriously, and is more likely to resist inter-marriage and its wombs being colonized by alien genes.
That’s a separate issue from whether Muslims should be in the West. Naturally, they should not. Aside form a handful of tourists, diplomats, international businessmen, cultural performers, retired spies for us, and genuinely useful students, all non-citizen Muslims should be expelled by Western governments, and citizens given incentives to renounce their citizenship and leave. It’s cheaper in the long run.
Posted by Irish at 8:56 PM on June 9
What’s the problem here? The fact she misrepresented herself as a virgin is not contested. I’d say that lie was quite a big deal, grounds for an annulment if ever there was one.
The fact they are Muslim has nothing to do with it.
Not only is she not a virgin, she is also a liar.
Posted by at 9:03 PM on June 9
To me, it is simple. The bride entered into a contract under false pretenses. Religion, culture, and immigration are only tangential to this. I would think that any marriage in any cultural context is still a contract under any Western legal system and thus can be nullified if any party was induced to particpate under false pretenses. The woman had the option to refuse to discuss her virginity status, tell the guy to go… etc.
That said, France (and the rest of the West) would be much better off without these elements living within her borders and we would certainly see considerably fewer bizarre court cases like this one.
Posted by underdog at 9:48 PM on June 9
muslim men take your women and children and swim back to the hell hole you came from…soon not only french laws will be changed to suit these rats but same will happen in every country they plant those filthy feet of theirs….keep on watching more to come soon!
Posted by lydia at 10:31 PM on June 9
I always find a bit of black comedy in articles such as this one. After sneering at America’s backward Christian religiosity for so long, Europe seems more than happy to accomodate Muslims and their far more oppressive beliefs with glee!! Of course many here in America appear cut from the same cloth. The “brown” religions are fine…only the (traditionally)white must go.
Posted by HH at 10:59 PM on June 9
Justice Minister Rachida Dati, whose parents also were born in North Africa, initially shrugged off the ruling
Isn’t it funny how these supposed “assimilated” Arabs manage to time and again take the side of their co-ethnics/co-religionists?
If Ms. Dati is assimilated as we’d all like to believe, she ought to be outraged.
Posted by Michael T at 2:49 AM on June 10
I really don’t understand, why the French are so out the house about this ruling.
Virginity or no virginity, there was a lie about something that was of great importance to the groom. I don’t think that somebody should be forced to stay married with a person, who lied to him/her. That’s no good beginning for marriage, that’s for sure. And the ruling was based on the fact of that lie. I don’t know what wording is used at the marriage ceremony in France, but here the pair also declares, that they know the health and financial status of their partner, before they say their Yes.
I really don’t understand, what use the appeal would serve - the next time such case happens, they will probably go for divorce based on mutual disagreement or another formal run-of-the-mill excuse after settling the thing between families first.
Posted by EW at 5:05 AM on June 10
I don’t entirely disagree with this ruling. While I think it is unreasonable to expect a woman to be a virgin upon marriage now-a-days, I do think that both parties should not misrepresent themselves in order to get married. Imagine how you would feel if a girl you married turned out to have been a complete slut before you met her and had slept with many people you know. Or what if she was pregnant and said that you were the father when it was really someone more attractive but less reliable than yourself.
I myself would not demand virginity from a potential spouse, but if somebody has that criteria then they have a right to it and shouldn’t be lied to. The cost to them is that it will be harder to find that virgin, particularly in the West.
Posted by John at 5:29 AM on June 10
OK. We have already affirmed the “right” of a woman to lie to a prospective employer about a pregnancy. However, in both Muslim custom and secular French law marriage is a civil contract. If the ware is defective, the contract is null and void. So what?
This reminds me of a physician friend recounting how an Iranian woman undergoing reconstructive surgery (of the hymen, for, erm, obvious reasons) asked him in all innocence how often the procedure could be done.
Frankly, I find the whole matter hilarious. Notice that both the bride and the groom wanted to get this over with in as gentle and low-key a way as possible until the rabid feminists pounced on it.
Oh, and I LOVE the date of the ruling: April 1 (g)
Posted by nokangaroos at 6:08 AM on June 10
I dont see whats the problem here. *PER SE*
The bride lied. So the marriage is annuled. The posters imply its ok to dislike this simply because the people involved are muslims.
Permit me to provide another viewpoint. If judges upheld contracts the way it was upheld here, religious and flexible marriage contracts could be built.
To quote F Roger Devlin from his “Sexual Utopia in Power” article (he also wrote an article for Amren recently),
“One proposal for strengthening marriage is the recognition of personalized marriage contracts. These could be made to accord with various religious traditions. I see no reason they might not stipulate that the husband would vote on behalf of his family. Feminists who think political participation more important than family life could still live as they please, but they would be
forced to make a clear choice. This would help erode the superstitious belief in a universal right to participate in politics, and political life itself would be less affected by the feminine tendencies to value security over freedom and to
base public policies on sentiment. Property would also be more secure where the producers of wealth have greater political power.”
Posted by at 9:40 AM on June 10
“The bride said she was a virgin. When her new husband discovered that was a lie, he went to court to annul the marriage—and a French judge agreed.”
I think, as someone else said, it is unreasonable to expect the bride to be a virgin on her wedding night in this day and age, especially if the groom isn’t one, and it is absurd to consider a woman who is not a virgin impure. However, if virginity is important to the couple, then both should have been honest with each other. However, maybe she loved him so she fudged a bit, she is only human. However, both the husband and wife agreed to the annulment, that is their business. I don’t think the French however, should alter their law for this couple. If virginity isn’t grounds for annulment in France, it shouldn’t be allowed just because they are muslim.
Posted by at 9:43 AM on June 10
“I have sympathy for the poor guy that was duped into believing that he was marrying an upright girl like himself, but ended finding out that she was a former slut.”
Just because someone is not a virgin doesn’t mean they are a slut. Give me a break. Where do men anyway get off judging women’s morality when it comes to sex. Maybe there would be more virgins if more men kept their pants on. Anyways, I don’t think the French should cater to muslims. If these muslims want it like it was back in their homelands, they need to go home.
Posted by Jo at 9:50 AM on June 10
“My bride lied to me too and years later when a child got sick with an inherited disease she fled because it was not my child.”
Years ago, a child born to a woman didn’t have to be supported by a husband if he could prove it wasn’t his.
THe US Supreme Court changed all that, so a husband HAS to provide child support EVEN if he could show it wasn’t his.
And if you state that you are the child’s father on a birth certificate, you are now responsible even if later you can prove you aren’t the father.
This is so that men can pay and PAY for all the women deceivers out there.
Never believe a women until you can verify her claims!!!!
Women were placed on earth to make men’s lives a life of misery.
Posted by at 10:11 AM on June 10
““One proposal for strengthening marriage is the recognition of personalized marriage contracts. These could be made to accord with various religious traditions.”
I couldn’t disagree more. Marriage is a civil contract and our country has seperation of church and state. Religious issues in marriage are private matters of the individual and their religion.
“I see no reason they might not stipulate that the husband would vote on behalf of his family.”
Nonsense, in our society and in any advanced society, any adult, male or female, has the right to vote. It has nothing to do with marriage.
“Feminists who think political participation more important than family life could still live as they please, but they would be
forced to make a clear choice.”
Again, absurd. Women can have political participation and family life, it’s not an either/or. There is no choice.
“This would help erode the superstitious belief in a universal right to participate in politics, and political life itself would be less affected by the feminine tendencies to value security over freedom and to base public policies on sentimentProperty would also be more secure where the producers of wealth have greater political power.””
Everyone(excluding those in prison) has the right to participate in politics and should because politics affects everyone and this is a democracy. To call this fact superstitious is ridiculous. Mr.Devlin needs to look at the destructive white male tendency today to value wealth and power over all. Producers of wealth do have the greatest political power today and these mostly white males(politicians and business leaders) are destroying our country by allowing and encouraging mass 3rd world immigration to our country in order to have slave wage labor. Anything for a buck. So don’t talk to me about women and sentiment. Women’s so-called sentiment isn’t half a destructive as men’s politics based on power and greed. Anyway, a society needs to have a balance between security and wealth. Go to far in either direction and you have problems.
Posted by Jo at 10:55 AM on June 10
Suppose the bridgroom had asked his wife before marriage: what is your IQ? And the future wife said 85—fearing that her intended husband would not want a very smart wife. If, subsequently, the husband found out that his wife was a member of Mensa, should he then divorce her?
Posted by OCCAM at 11:03 AM on June 10
“political life itself would be less affected by the feminine tendencies to value security over freedom and to base public policies on sentiment.”
Women don’t vote on sentiment. People, men or women, vote according to what is best for them. As the saying goes, where you stand depends upon where you sit. I’m no socialist but the truth is that women, the bearers of children as well as the main caretakers, are more dependent on a man financially then men are on women.If women end up divorced or widowed, they are more likely to struggle financially and thus more secure social policies benefit them. Thus, logically, security is more important to women then is is for men. Men, on the other hand, do not depend on women too much for financial security. Any wealth made by men, thus will be taxed more to pay for security for someone else and logically men don’t want this. Both sexes vote for what is best for them. Sentiment has nothing to do with it.
Posted by at 11:10 AM on June 10
Many of the posters have obviously missed the importance of this story. The objective import of this issue for Westerners is not whether the woman was a virgin. The objective issue is whether a French court should base its ruling on the Muslim customs of the complainant or on the history and precedence of French law. The posters here who agree with the ruling — for ANY reason — are putting their own personal views — moral, legal, philosophical, and ideological — above the survival of their race and culture. That is why the West and white people are in jeopardy — because misguided fools think that morality and philosophy are more important than their own race and culture.
Posted by Frank at 11:24 AM on June 10
Whether the bride lied or the husband demanded an annulment is not the issue. The point is that MUSLIMS SIMPLY DO NOT BELONG IN A WHITE NATION! What is so hard to understand in that statement?
Let the Muslims stay in their world where they belong. Then practice whatever suits their fancy. Just stay OUT OF WHITE EUROPEAN (OR AMERICAN) COUNTRIES! The social problems, not forgetting crime and demands for government (taxpayer funded) support and assistance these third-world primitives bring with them… it is simply is not to the best interests of White people, anywhere!
Posted by Fed Up at 1:16 PM on June 10
This was an interesting case in that it obviously brought two forms of political correctness into collision with one another. I agree that civil law should not be peverted in order to suit the customs of ethnic or religious minorities, yet this court ruling was simply not an instance of that. In civil terms marriage is indeed a contract between two consenting partners, agreed on equal terms. In this case one aspect of the civil contract was falsified, and the husband should certainly not be denied the right to annul the marriage given this flagrant breach of trust. The only reason the ruling is controversial is that, because of the obvious unfairness of customs that expect virginity from the bride but not neccessarily the groom, the guilty party can be seen a victim of sexist cultural customs. I find this absurd; imagine if the tables were turned. If virginity was a prerequisite for my future wife and I assured her that I was chaste, she would be completely within her rights to annul the marriage upon discovering that I am not! Simply, the fact that the bride belonged to a ‘vicim’ group should not be allowed to obscure that she lied about one of the essentials of the marriage, and that this is indeed grounds for annulment under secular French law.
The comment about reducing marriage to a commercial transaction was particularly moronic but calculated, given that in this case the terms of the marriage had nothing at all to do with such trite ‘civil’ values and everything to do with the eternal backbone of marriage: the bond of trust between man and wife. The sentiment smacked of the Left trying to cheapen this unspoken and special bond by likening it to the banal world of commence.
I was also dismayed to see that the whole of the political spectrum (allegedly) oppose this ruling: I would expect such idiocy from the progressive or the politically correct Left, but not from the Right.
Posted by James at 2:39 PM on June 10
Notice in this, the media tries to put the evil right wing in it’s place, so to speak, while covering this, by equating this to women’s advances, even as they can never find a bad thing to say about each newly discovered third world pristine area and never have a good thing to say about the comparitive benevolence of their own countries. They equate this assault on womanhood to their own evil righties, even as they work to allow more immigration of these very groups and provide preferences for them when they arrive, especially these very psychological hatred, anti-hatred, (as the case may be) preferences. Of course very real preferences too.
I forgot what else I was going to say, but that was one thing.
Posted by Dr. Smith at 3:22 PM on June 10
“This is so that men can pay and PAY for all the women deceivers out there.
Never believe a women until you can verify her claims!!!!
Women were placed on earth to make men’s lives a life of misery.”
That’s funny because most women say that men were put on this earth to make women’s lives miserable ie. men can’t live with em can’t shoot em LOL. Seriously, do you honestly think men are truthful!!!! Men are the biggest liars and deceivers out there when it comes to sex. Plenty of women’s lives have been made miserable by men. I do agree that men should not have to pay for children that are not theirs but there have also been many men who haven’t paid for children that are theirs. This train, I’m afraid goes both ways.
Posted by at 12:26 AM on June 11
men pay and PAY for all the women deceivers out there.
Never believe a women until you can verify her claims!!!!
Women were placed on earth to make men’s lives a life of misery.
Posted by at 10:11 AM on June 10
—————————————————-
Good grief! What a pessimistic point of view.
I think what this guy is trying to say is: Never marry a woman!
What would he suggest, I wonder?
Posted by voter at 12:48 AM on June 15