Tag Archives: France

News

Taxpayer-funded polygamy in the UK, France and Canada

5 Comments

From Life Site News.

Excerpt:

When a Muslim woman was fined late last month in Nantes, France for driving while wearing a full face veil, the issue of polygamy burst into the spotlight when it was revealed that her husband had three other “wives.”

The incident has re-opened the debate in Europe over the dilemma faced by European governments with, on the one hand, aging native populations and below-replacement birth rates, and, on the other, burgeoning Muslim immigrant populations with customs incompatible with existing laws.

Objections to his alleged polygamy were answered by the woman’s husband, Lies Hebbadj, an Algerian-born Muslim, who pointed out that, in accordance with modern French customs, he does not have four wives but one wife and four mistresses, plus 12 children between them.

“If one can be stripped of one’s French nationality for having mistresses, then many French could lose theirs,” Mr. Hebbadj, a halal butcher, said after consulting his legal counsel. “As far as I know, mistresses are not forbidden, neither in France, nor in Islam.”

Hebbadj reportedly became a naturalized French citizen after he married Anne, his French wife. But French Interior Minister, Brice Hortefeux, has said that Hebbadj could have his citizenship revoked if he his found to be practicing polygamy. Authorities are investigating whether he was legally married to the other women in civil ceremonies, and whether he was profiting from single mother welfare benefits the other women may have been receiving fraudulently.

The same thing is also happening in Canada and the UK.

Excerpt:

It was a rude awakening for British and Canadian taxpayers when news emerged this week to confirm that their tax dollars were being used to support polygamous marriages.

[…]British legislation from 2003 opened the door to the current situation by allowing multiple wives to inherit assets from a deceased husband. More recently, the government investigated claims that polygamists were taking advantage of the welfare system. It should have led to fines and legal crackdowns on abusers; instead it led to the creation of a new set of rules that allow polygamists to claim welfare benefits for more than one wife.

The government obviously wasn’t that proud of its innovative actions, since it acted quietly and without public consultation in agreeing to pay polygamists subsidies for additional housing and to grant additional tax benefits. Worse still, all payments bypass the wives and are given directly to the husband.

British citizens only found out about these changes when a newspaper broke the story last week.

At the same time, Canadian Muslim leaders admitted that hundreds of Muslim men in Ontario are now claiming welfare and social benefits for their multiple wives. This is welfare fraud. The system is supposed to prevent applicants from claiming welfare for more than one spouse, but the fraud works because they don’t check for independent applications from multiple spouses in the same household.

Under Muslim (Sharia) law, men are permitted to have up to four wives. If the paperwork is handled properly, that can put taxpayers on the hook for a huge monthly payment of social benefits.

I know that governments waste a lot of money, but this seems to me to be a particularly egregious example of the perverse incentives created by the welfare state. I have friends in Canada who are married with TWO children and are paying 50% of their income in taxes. Is this what they are paying for? It’s very frustrating to contemplate that traditional Christians are subsidizing polygamy. And abortion, too!

I believe in life-long married love between one man and one woman, because that is the best for the children. What do children who are raised in a polygamous marriage believe about women? Will they see romantic love being modeled in their own homes? It just wounds my heart. What is good for a man is to be in love with a woman and more than the feeling is the act of loving her alone, to the exclusion of all others.

The state should not be paying weak, cowardly men to degrade women like this. And with taxpayer money.

My view of love

My view of love and marriage is explained in the related posts. I’m a Christian, so I believe in chastity and romantic love. Notice how different that is from the secular and Islamic traditions. Christianity invented chivalry – romantic love is a Christian ideal. When Christianity declines, romantic love declines.

Related posts on chastity, chivalry, courtship and marriage

News

France introduces bill to require boards of directors to be 40% female

5 Comments

Story from the UK Times.

Excerpt:

The French version of the glass ceiling has just been cracked open by parliamentary vote. With the backing of President Sarkozy’s administration, the National Assembly last night passed a bill that aims to force big companies to appoint women to 40 percent of their seats on the board.

[…]Norway introduced a 40 percent rule in 2002 when women accounted for only 6 per cent of board seats there. Spain has also just passed a similar law.

The measure will mean an upheaval because the boards of France’s top companies remain male bastions, along with those of southern Europe (see chart below). Women occupy just 10.5 percent of board seats in the 650 publicly quoted companies to which the new law will apply. Corporations will have six years to reach the 40 percent mark. After that, all board appointments will be voided if they do not maintain at least a 60-40 share between men and women.

Women today seem to prefer a pay check and government social programs over relationships with husbands and children. A relationship means that the other person may say or do things that hurt you, and that they may make demands on you to act morally or to think rationally or to take care of others. I have heard the demands of men and children described as “harassment” by women, and compared unfavorably with workplace relationships. For some reason, women have decided that the workplace is less “harassment” than the family.

Women may still marry for the spectacle of the wedding. They may still have babies to play with and show off. (But the man should change the diapers). But the willingness to accept the demands of relationships is gone. Today’s women think that life should be about their happiness all the time, and that no one should ever confront them with moral judgments and moral obligations. So a husband’s demands for a woman to spend less will be met with a unilateral divorce. And a child’s demands for attention will be met with day care.

Today’s women are just not interested in communication, relationships, commitments, and nurturing.

Related posts

News

France passes law to jail spouses who commit psychological violence

6 Comments

Here is an article from the UK Daily Mail. (H/T ECM)

Excerpt:

Married couples in France could end up with criminal records for insulting each other during arguments.

Under a new law, France is to become the first country in the world to ban ‘ psychological violence’ within marriage.

The law would apply to cohabiting couples and to both men and women.

It would cover men who shout at their wives and women who hurl abuse at their husbands – although it was not clear last night if nagging would be viewed as breaking the law.

The law is expected to cover every kind of insult including repeated rude remarks about a partner’s appearance, false allegations of infidelity and threats of physical violence.

Police are being urged to issue a caution in the first instance, but repeat offenders could face a fine, a restraining order or even jail.

Feminists don’t like long-term, stable male-female relationships, because they think that it creates unequal “husband” and “wife” roles.

This law will dissuade men from marrying. Men are not going to be happy about going to jail just because they tell their wives to spend less money, etc. And women need to start to do something to prevent such laws. Women are going to have decide whether they want to substitute courts, police and government-run social programs for husbands and fathers. They can’t have socialism and a family.

Until I see proof that women intend to crusade against these anti-male, anti-family laws, I am not going to be favorably disposed toward marriage. This is where we are going in the West, towards greater and greater feminism, higher taxes, more social programs, and greater regulation of the family by the courts. A man cannot be the head of a family when he has no power and no respect.