summary of book

Citizenship on Trial: Nadia's Case Author(s): Unni Wikan Source: Daedalus, Vol. 129, No. 4, The End of Tolerance: Engaging Cultural Differences (Fall, 2000), pp. 55-76 Published by: The MIT Press on behalf of American Academy of Arts & Sciences Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20027664 Accessed: 16-01-2018 16:37 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide

range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and

facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at

http://about.jstor.org/terms

American Academy of Arts & Sciences, The MIT Press are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Daedalus

This content downloaded from 69.133.21.254 on Tue, 16 Jan 2018 16:37:13 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Unni Wikan

Citizenship on Trial: Nadia's Case

ON October 3, 1997, Norwegians awoke to the news that Nadia, a Norwegian citizen, eighteen years old, had been kidnapped by her parents and brought to Mo

rocco, where she was being held captive. The purpose report edly was to have her married by force. It was Nadia herself who managed to sound an alarm by way of a phone call to a fellow employee at a store where she worked and where she had failed to show up on Monday, September 1, giving no notice. She was in a terrible state, telling how she had been drugged, beaten, and forced into a van that had transported her, in handcuffs, with her family to Morocco. Stripped of her passport, she was now being held in her father's house, and she was desperate to be set free.

Her colleague contacted their boss, who went straight to the police; when the police were slow to take action, he contacted the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.1 They acted expeditiously. The

Norwegian ambassador in Morocco was informed and a rescue plan was conceived. The ambassador would try to negotiate with Moroccan local authorities and with Nadia's father for her release.

There was every reason for Norway to engage itself, for not only was Nadia a Norwegian citizen, but her parents were too. Her father had come to Norway in 1971, at the age of twenty, and had held Norwegian citizenship since 1985?as had her

Unni Wikan is a professor in the department of social anthropology at the Univer sity of Oslo.

This essay is part of a forthcoming volume, The Free Exercise of Culture, edited by R. Shweder, M. Minow, and H. Markus. ? Russell Sage Foundation. All rights reserved.

55

This content downloaded from 69.133.21.254 on Tue, 16 Jan 2018 16:37:13 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

56 Unni Wikan

mother, who joined him in 1978. Norway does not recognize dual citizenship. Thus, from the point of view of Norway, the judicial statuses of Nadia and her parents were clear. Also, the crime, if so it was?and at this point there was much to indicate that a crime had been committed?had been perpetrated on

Norwegian soil.2 Hence, there was no question about Norway's right and duty to investigate the case and try to work out a solution.

But there was a hurdle, and it concerned citizenship. That one state does not recognize dual citizenship matters little as long as another state with which a citizen is affiliated does, and

Morocco did. This had serious consequences, especially for Nadia. A Norwegian adult, she was transformed into a Moroc can child?for the legal age in Morocco is twenty, not eighteen, as in Norway. Hence, she came under her father's jurisdiction as undisputed legal head of his family. If he found it warranted to keep his daughter locked up, that was his business. All

Moroccan authorities could do was to help Norway locate the family, as they did.

A week of tense negotiations, conducted by phone, followed between the ambassador and Nadia's father. Norwegians mean while followed the case with utmost suspense, as Nadia's case? Nadiasaken?had become a national issue, and the outcome was fraught with uncertainty. Three times her father promised to set her free, only to renege on his word?leading the ambas sador, at one point, to call him a liar. A key problem was the father's insistence on a guarantee of "safe passage," meaning he would not be prosecuted on his return to Norway. This the ambassador could not and would not extend; it was up to the police to decide what to do after a thorough investigation. But when all hope was deemed to be lost, Nadia suddenly reap peared in the Oslo airport, her father having paid for her ticket himself. She was met by her brother, a friend of his, and a social worker who was a family friend. According to the media, Nadia was exhausted but happy to be back in Norway. All she wanted was to rest and be left in peace. A week later, she was reunited with her family when they too returned to Norway. What was the reason for Nadia's father's turn of heart?

Probably the interruption of all social welfare benefits to the

This content downloaded from 69.133.21.254 on Tue, 16 Jan 2018 16:37:13 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Citizenship on Trial: Nadia's Case 57

family. This had been a final and drastic move on Norway's part. Though by no means poor, the family incurred a heavy loss: about 17,500 Norwegian crowns a month (U.S. $2,400 at the time) with the father's disability pension (due to a heart disease) and three child allowances. In addition, the family had a comfortable flat at subsidized rent. Stopping these payments was justified on the grounds that the family had left Norway for more than a month without informing the social welfare agen cies. This constituted a breach for which it was possible to effectuate sanctions, and Norway now did?with the desired result. Nadia was set free.

But hardly had Nadia been reunited with her family before her case took a new turn: she recanted on her story. According to the media, it had all been fantasy and fabrication. Actually, she had gone to Morocco on her own accord to visit her sick grandmother. But when the family wanted to remain in Mo rocco longer than she wanted, she became desperate. So she pulled off the lie to marshal help. She was deeply sorry about the disturbance she had caused and the pain inflicted on her family. Now all she wanted was to be reconciled with them.

It goes without saying that this new development caused quite a stir, and many wondered what was really going on. Some Moroccan and Pakistani youths with whom I talked complained that Nadia had let them down. She had had a golden opportunity to become a rallying point for other youths who were threatened with forced marriage, and now, she had chickened out for fear of reprisals. It was perfectly understand able what she had done, but to stand brave so long and then give in . . .

There were also debates in the media?some of which I participated in myself?regarding the plight of the second gen eration, especially in regard to forced marriage (a common problem in Western Europe). Not that these issues had not been discussed before, but Nadia's case had been a catalyst giving them added urgency and a human face.

Following Nadia's admission of lying, her parents were re ported to be preparing a lawsuit against two national newspa pers and against the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for having scandalized their name. A sizable compensation would be claimed.

This content downloaded from 69.133.21.254 on Tue, 16 Jan 2018 16:37:13 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

58 UnniWikan

But it was not to be so. A year later, Nadia's parents were brought to court by the Norwegian state on a charge of "hav ing forcibly held someone against her will" (frihetsberovelse). The minimum sentence is one year in prison; the maximum is fifteen years.

Because I was called as a "cultural expert" for the court, I attended the whole proceedings.3 I also met with Nadia's par ents and her grandfather, outside court, in their home, in the company of a leader from the Moroccan community, who served as mediator. The story that follows draws on this en gagement.4

The trial lasted for five full days, with an extra day for the verdict. Witnesses for the defense were Nadia's grandfather, her brother, the brother's friend, a social worker,5 two Moroc can girls, a leader from the Moroccan community, and a few other family friends. Witnesses for the prosecution were Nadia, the ambassador, the police who had investigated the case, a psychologist whom Nadia had seen after her return to Norway, and a few of her Norwegian friends. In addition, the prosecu tion presented as evidence a tape of two telephone conversa tions between Nadia and her parents that Nadia had helped the police record without her parents' knowledge. The defense attorneys protested vigorously, but after a thorough consider ation, the judge decided to allow the tapes.

Half of the trial (two and a half days) was spent on Nadia's parents' testimony, since proceedings were slowed down by translation. Nadia's mother said in court that she knew no

Norwegian, though I know her to speak quite well, and her husband is quite fluent. But with what was at stake, it was only natural that they would seek the added assurance that transla tors provide.6 The parents' story repeated what Nadia had said on her

return to Norway: she had gone to Morocco of her own accord to visit her sick grandmother. Supposedly, she had pleaded with them to let her go, against the warnings of Nadia's mother that she might lose her job if she were unable to notify her boss; they had to leave in great haste. But so much does Nadia love her grandmother that she did not care.

This content downloaded from 69.133.21.254 on Tue, 16 Jan 2018 16:37:13 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Citizenship on Trial: Nadia's Case 59

The parents conceded that there had been problems between Nadia and them at times. But her parents had never done anything but act in Nadia's best interests. They were trying to save her from herself and her bad Norwegian friends, they said. To that effect, they were willing to go to some lengths, natu rally. But never to the point of beating her or kidnapping her or keeping her locked up. Nadia had always been free to do what she wanted. She had been a loved, even a spoiled, child. And what is more, Nadia in Morocco had been free to go where she wanted; there had been no keys, no locked doors?as Nadia admitted in court. But, as she said, where would she go (without her passport, without money, with informers all around)? "The whole country had kidnapped me!"7

Faced with the necessity of having to brand their daughter a liar, the parents turned to an age-old recourse: throwing the blame on others.8 It was not Nadia's fault that she did what she

did; she was under the sway of Norwegian bad influence, from both her schoolmates and some journalists who, the parents claimed, wanted to make money on her. They had tricked her into inventing these lies in order to sell her story.9 But according to Nadia's subsequent testimony, they also

believed her to be under another kind of influence: supernatural jinns that had taken control over her. To her horror, she had been subjected to various cleansing rituals in Morocco (a de scription was given as part of the trial closed to the public). But this was not something the parents talked about in court. At no point did they present themselves as anything but modern and educated people?which indeed they were. Nor did the defense attorneys try to mount any kind of cultural defense based on the parents' supernatural beliefs, which they might not even have heard about before Nadia's testimony?although such beliefs are widespread among Moroccans in Norway. On the con trary; the defense tried to capitalize on the parents' standing as being of a prominent and cosmopolitan Moroccan family. The court was shown photos of Nadia's grandfather's palace in

Morocco, and of her parents' stylish house.10 Bringing jinns into the picture could only have complicated this image, though it

might in fact have helped explain why Nadia was kept so long

This content downloaded from 69.133.21.254 on Tue, 16 Jan 2018 16:37:13 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

60 Unni Wikan

in Morocco: for the cleansing rituals to work, one most not cross the sea for a month, I am told by Moroccan-Norwegian friends.

The crown witness for the prosecution was Nadia. She made her entry from a back door, avoiding the onslaught of gazes that were sure to meet her had she come from the front. For she

was a celebrity already, through no wish of her own. Indeed, she had been in hiding for over a year, living at a secret address. And when she testified in court, there were two police men sitting guard behind her, just for security.

To bring one's parents to court?especially a mother?is considered the utmost outrage among Muslims (as among many others). It did not matter that it was not she who had done it; the charge had been brought by the Norwegian police. In the eyes of the community and her family, Nadia was a traitor. She had received threats on her life.

She entered the courtroom with a blanket over her face to avoid the gaze of the public, but also to avoid her parents' eyes. She had asked that they not be present in the courtroom proper, and they were sitting in the translator's cubicle to the very back; but it was only a few steps away and there was just a glass wall separating her and them.

She had not made it a condition of her testifying that they be absent from the courtroom proper. But she had pleaded, and her wish had been granted. No one doubted the agony she must be going through. Nor did anyone doubt the pain of her parents' hard-tested emotions. They had not seen each other for a year, parents and child, not since the day Nadia decided to tell the truth after all, having first done it in Morocco, and then having repented to cover for her parents on her return to Norway, only to be overcome by fear that they might let her down again? and then who would believe her cries for help? She was also concerned about her little sister, whom she adored and who might one day come to share her fate, as well as others, un known, who were in the same shoes. (All this I know from her testimony in court.) So she had gone back on her cover-up story, contacted the police (whom she knew to be conducting an investigation of her parents) to tell the truth, and cooperated with them to gather evidence against her parents.

This content downloaded from 69.133.21.254 on Tue, 16 Jan 2018 16:37:13 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Citizenship on Trial: Nadia's Case 61

She was a fragile-looking young girl as she entered with the black blanket covering her head. But as soon as she stood up in the witness stand, the blanket removed, she appeared steadfast and strong in her demeanor. She spoke with a clear voice, and answered lucidly every question. At times she broke down. The memory was too much for her. Some time into her testimony, her attorney suggested that she be allowed to sit in front of the witness stand, the box at her back.

That must have been a relief. Standing, she had felt the full force of her parents' gaze, hitting her from the back. She had made no concession to them in the way she appeared. She was dressed in black pants and a black sweater, both tight-fitting, but not immodestly so?from a Norwegian perspective. Her parents would have felt differently. Knowing that how she dressed had been a point of contention between Nadia and her parents, I cannot help wondering if she did it on purpose. But why should she not appear her own self in court when that was what the whole battle had been about, her right to be her own person?

I never turned to look at her parents throughout Nadia's testimony. But I know others who did; one journalist reported her father shaking his head in exasperation at times as she told the court her story. Her mother reportedly cried a lot. The next day Nadia's father asked to be allowed to speak in court, out of turn. He accused his daughter of being a liar. All she had said, he said, was a lie. How could any parents do to their daughter what she accused them of? Could anyone be so cal lous? But Nadia had brought shame on the whole family and herself, he claimed; that was why she was desperate. She was not a virgin anymore, and in Morocco, a girl who is not a virgin before marriage has no future.

In revealing that Nadia was not a virgin, Nadia's father went public with a secret that there was no reason for him to reveal had he not wanted to. And thus he may be seen to have triggered the shame that otherwise could have remained undis closed. Nadia had been more discreet. She had revealed to the court, as part of a closed hearing, that she had told her mother, on the way to Morocco, that she had slept with a boy.11

This content downloaded from 69.133.21.254 on Tue, 16 Jan 2018 16:37:13 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

62 Unni Wikan

Now her father had exposed the disgrace, bringing it on himself, as it might seem, by making the matter public. But perhaps the father felt that he had already been so disgraced by his daughter's misdemeanors that there were no holds barred and nothing to lose: better to reveal the depth of her fall and be done with it.

"Here in court," he said, shaking his head, "you think it is we who have committed a wrong. But Nadia cries because her honor is destroyed. Everything she tells you is just lies and falsehood. But I know that she does not mean any of this. It is her accomplices who are making her do it. Nadia has forgotten the nine months in her mother's womb, the care and affection she received, her childhood, her upbringing until she came of age. Now we are repaid for the kindness we as parents have shown," said Nadia's father while her mother cried openly. According to Nadia, her parents had planned to marry her to

a twenty-one-year-old Moroccan (whose picture her mother had showed her) so that he could get a visa to Norway and so that she would "become Moroccan." Indeed, this was what the whole battle had been about: her wish to be Norwegian versus their insistence that she "become Moroccan" and "become

Muslim." The retraction she had produced on her return to Norway

was at her parents' instruction. It was their deal for setting her free: she would ensure that they would not be prosecuted by taking the whole blame herself. Her concern for her younger siblings also contributed to her trying to pull off the lie.

That Nadia and her parents had long been at loggerheads is clear: six months before her abduction, Nadia had contacted the child welfare agency regarding her father's ostensible abuse.

Her father, she said, beat her and was furious because she was "too Norwegian": she was not allowed to wear makeup, wear pants, go out to dance, have a (Pakistani) boyfriend. Her father had even gone to a caf? where she had worked and threatened some of the staff that he would kill them if they did not make

Nadia quit. He did not want her to work in such a place. (This was confirmed by the people in question.)

As a result, Nadia was placed under child welfare custody for three months, living in a youth institution. She moved home

This content downloaded from 69.133.21.254 on Tue, 16 Jan 2018 16:37:13 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Citizenship on Trial: Nadia's Case 63

only after her eighteenth birthday (when she became legally an adult) and with her father's assurances that he would not beat her. Apparently the move was voluntary. But as Nadia said in court, the project (her word) of the child welfare agencies was not her own. They were set on reuniting her with her family against her will.

The problems did not go away; they resumed. Her brother said in court that he did not love her anymore, not after she had said that she did not want to be a Muslim. Her parents said in court that they had nothing against Nadia being "Norwegian." She could do as she liked, even marry a Norwegian. But they did not like her drinking and smoking and staying out late at night. Would any parent, even a Norwegian parent? Two girls who served as witnesses for the defense confirmed this?that Nadia's parents had given her full freedom, even to marry the Pakistani if she wanted?but her parents were naturally upset by Nadia's disgraceful behavior. Had she not been seen drunk in the street on occasion?

But Nadia herself told a different story, about being beaten and oppressed to "become" a Muslim and Moroccan: "Did you not tell me I would have to stay in Morocco till I was married and had a baby and only then could I return to Norway?" Nadia asked her mother in a telephone conversation that was taped and presented as evidence in court. "And did you not threaten me that I would have to remain in Morocco till I rotted?"

"You have misunderstood me, my daughter, I was only jok ing," said the mother.

"It is not the kind of thing one jokes about," said Nadia. A key witness for the defense was Nadia's maternal grand

father, a prominent and wealthy patriarch who wielded consid erable influence in his home district in Morocco. A cordial man, he left in disgust: "I thought Norway was a democracy where there was justice before the law. But this is not democracy! The judge chose to believe a young girl over her family; they sided

with her. That is injustice." He would go back to Morocco to tell the people so and to launch a court case against the ambas sador who had vastly overstepped his powers. "He even of fered to send a car to pick up Nadia?from her own family!"

This content downloaded from 69.133.21.254 on Tue, 16 Jan 2018 16:37:13 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

64 Unni Wikan

But the worst was all the things the ambassador had said to the media, and now in court. The grandfather wanted his family's honor restored, and he was going to do it by suing the ambas sador. Had not Nadia gone to Morocco of her own free will to visit

her sick grandmother? Had she not begged her parents to let her go, even though they had been concerned that she would let her employer down by not showing up for work? The grandfather's testimony on these points was in line with that of the parents. They had told the court how the decision to go to

Morocco had been made impromptu on a Saturday night. The telegram (from Nadia's mother's brother) telling the family of the grandmother's serious sickness and urging them to come had arrived the day before, but there were no tickets for a flight to Morocco until two weeks later. So Nadia's father was thrilled

when by sheer good luck on Saturday, he met a man who was going to drive to Morocco the next day; by chance the man had five seats free in his delivery van?just enough to accommodate

Nadia's family.12 But all this meant that the decision to go was not made until Saturday night. Nadia came home late that night and went to work early the next morning, so it was mid-Sunday before she was informed of the family's decision to travel that night. To her mother's delight she insisted on coming along. "I could not believe my ears when Nadia said she wanted to come," said her mother in court. But so much does Nadia love her grandmother that she was even willing to let her employer down and risk losing her job ("I'll get it back," her mother reported her as saying). And yet the Norwegian state pros ecutes the family for having forced Nadia to go, even kidnap ping her! The grandfather was outraged.

But when he was questioned about his wife's illness, he was at a loss: well, she is sick all the time. . . . How is she sick? Well, she has diabetes and she faints and such things.. . . Does she faint often? How could he know, he doesn't sit at home .. . and so on.13 It was a sad spectacle. Watching Nadia's mother watch her father was heart-rending. Whether his exalted status had forbidden them, out of respect, to instruct him in their story, or

whether he had forgotten his lines, or was just out of place in

This content downloaded from 69.133.21.254 on Tue, 16 Jan 2018 16:37:13 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Citizenship on Trial: Nadia's Case 65

court, I cannot tell.14 Anyway, his testimony undermined the parents' story.

Someone who might have corroborated the parents' story, the driver with whom they went to Morocco, could not be brought as a witness because he could not be identified. The parents claimed not to know anything about him save for his first name?which did not sound plausible, given that they had spent five days together. According to Nadia, they had also spent a night in his house in Morocco.

But other witnesses came out for the parents, among them the social worker. She said she could not imagine that the family would do anything bad to Nadia; she knew them to be kind and caring people. She also painted a rather dreary picture of Nadia, as did two Moroccan girls?Nadia's friends, as they said?along with her brother and a friend of his. They all declared or implied that Nadia was a rather "loose" girl, fond of drinking, smoking, and staying out late at night.

But this was not Nadia's own fault, they said. It was because of her schoolmates in high school who were such a bad influ ence on her. Time and again this point was stressed by wit nesses of the defense. It was not Nadia herself but her school mates who caused her to fall.

A crown witness for the prosecution was the ambassador. Space prohibits a lengthy discussion of his testimony, but I think it safe to say that it made a strong impression on the court. He painted a most unflattering picture of Nadia's parents. Her father, he said, had even threatened to beat Nadia if Norway did not grant him "free passage." Her mother had called all Norwegian women whores.15 Nadia had been close to a break down and had been cajoled and threatened by her parents in the worst possible ways?as all the staff at the Norwegian embassy in Morocco could confirm, for they had listened in on the telephone negotiations. The ambassador's testimony was en tirely in line with Nadia's.

Another strong witness for the prosecution was the psycholo gist whom Nadia had been seeing for a year since she came back from Morocco, and who gave vivid testimonies of the traumas she had suffered.

This content downloaded from 69.133.21.254 on Tue, 16 Jan 2018 16:37:13 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

66 Unni Wikan

In the end the Norwegian state chose not to include a charge of forced marriage against Nadia's parents. For though Nadia was under the clear impression that they had a marriage in mind for her, there was no firm evidence of this. The charge was simply that of forcibly holding someone against her will, with a stipulation that the offense had exceeded one month, as it had in Nadia's case. The jury took only three days to reach a verdict. Both parents

were found guilty. Nadia's father was sentenced to one year and three months on suspension, her mother to one year. Her father was also sentenced to pay a fine of 15,000 crowns (then about $2,000) and "court proceedings costs" (saksomkostninger) of 60,000 crowns (about $8,000) connected with bringing wit nesses from abroad, the defense lawyer's journey to Morocco, and the like. Nadia's parents thus received a sentence lighter than the

legal minimum for the crime of which they were convicted. My own role may have had some significance here; the published verdict indicates as much. As a witness I was asked to answer truthfully every question but also to bring up any matter that I judged to be of significance to the case. And I did, speaking at some length on what I judged would be the cost to Nadia and her family should her parents, and especially her mother, be thrown in jail.

I was alarmed, I said, to find that whereas Nadia had had a lot of support among youths in the Moroccan community be fore the trial, she had lost it now. Instead, she was harshly criticized by nearly everyone; the reason I heard was that she was "throwing her parents in jail." People do not care that it is the Norwegian state that charged the parents. To them she is guilty, and of the most horrible deed: of throwing her mother in jail. Elaborating on the mother's position in Islam, I tried to

make it comprehensible that the reactions would be as they were. I also gave some objective reasons why the mother should be treated more leniently. As a wife in Islam she is subject to the "law of obedience," being duty-bound to obey her husband.

Hence, the benefit of the doubt should be the mother's in particular. In its published verdict, the court also noted that as

This content downloaded from 69.133.21.254 on Tue, 16 Jan 2018 16:37:13 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Citizenship on Trial: Nadia's Case 67

there was no evidence that the mother had beaten Nadia, she should receive a milder sentence than the father.

The court granted that for the sake of the whole family, the parents must not be jailed. But it was also necessary to establish a firm precedent and underscore the seriousness of the crime. The final sentence was in accordance with the prosecutor's procedure. He had pleaded forcefully for Nadia's case, asking the court to sentence her parents while keeping the options for family reconciliation open.

In its verdict the jury noted that there had been attempts by several witnesses to present Nadia in a disreputable light (fremstille henne i et mindre heldig lys). However, the court had a positive impression of Nadia as a clear-headed (ryddig) and bright girl. In the view of the court, Nadia deserved respect for the way she managed to carry through with her testimony. The court could not see that evidence had been presented to indicate that her demeanor was any different from that of other Norwe gian girls her age.

In this, the court followed the recommendation of the pros ecutor, who had advocated that Nadia receive some form of redress (oppreisning) for the injustice she had suffered from the massive attempts by some witnesses to blacken her reputation and portray her as a liar.

In the end, Nadia stood in willful independence, a solitary figure, bereft of expressed support within the Muslim commu nity, where she was perceived by many as a traitor. She even received threats on her life. Her parents' attempts, corrobo rated by others, to make her appear the dupe of bad Norwegian friends were totally against her own wish: to be perceived as a person in her own right. In time she has become a role model for others, both female and male, who gained strength and felt support from the Nadia case?without her ever trying to capi talize on her name. The only pictures that have appeared of her in the media were a snapshot published while she was in Mo rocco, and one of her under the black blanket on her way to court. Nor has she ever agreed to be interviewed. She lives quietly at a secret address. But I know that she has helped others who have sought her out. And by her example she has

This content downloaded from 69.133.21.254 on Tue, 16 Jan 2018 16:37:13 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

68 Unni Wikan

come to lend courage to others, none of whom lent her support during the trial, but who in the aftermath stand on her shoul ders. To understand how that came to be, let us look at the premises and implications of the verdict.

* * *

It was the matter of citizenship that decided Nadia's fate, in more than one way. Obviously, had she not been a Norwegian citizen, the Norwegian government could not have interceded on her behalf. But it was important that her parents were also Norwegian citizens. This is clear from the writ of the verdict. It states:

The defense attorneys have argued for acquittal on the grounds that Nadia, according to Moroccan law, becomes legally an adult (myndig) only at twenty years of age. Moroccan citizens are not freed from their citizenship if they acquire another. Nadia had, therefore, dual citizenship. Her parents must therefore have as sumed that she was a child/minor in Morocco, and that they were in their full right to keep her there against her will.

The court does not agree. When the parents have taken the step of applying for Norwegian citizenship for themselves and their children, this implies both rights and duties. An application for citizenship means that one has decided for oneself which state one wants to be most closely connected with, if not emotionally, at least judicially. That also means that one has to submit to (innordne seg) the rules applying in this state. The parents were well aware of what the legal age in Norway is. For a Norwegian citizen resident in Norway one cannot assume that Moroccan law should apply during short-term visits in that country, and especially not when [Nadia] has been brought there against her will. The crimi nal offense (det straffbare forholdet) was initiated in Norway. . . . Forcibly holding Nadia against her will was therefore in violation of the law.

Ignorance of the law (rettsvillfaring), which also has been claimed as grounds for acquittal, is likewise not applicable, according to the court. Forcibly holding a person against her will is illegal in

most states, if not in all. As residents of Norway, and as Norwe gian citizens, [Nadia's parents] must know the rules at least in this country.

This content downloaded from 69.133.21.254 on Tue, 16 Jan 2018 16:37:13 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Citizenship on Trial: Nadia's Case 69 Both the subjective and objective conditions for sentencing

(domfelling) are present, and the accused are sentenced according to the charge.

The verdict further states:

The case arises from culture conflicts. But it is the parents who have chosen to live in Norway. After many years of residence here, they are fully aware of how Norwegian society functions, for good and bad. That they wish to maintain the customs of their country of birth is unobjectionable, so long as these customs do not come into conflict with Norwegian law. Children can develop in ways that are different from what the parents hope for. But that is the risk in having children, and?not least?in letting them grow up in a different culture. The parents have made a choice as to which country their children will be molded by. That circumstance may have such consequences as resulting in the case currently before the court. Using violence and forceful deprivation of the freedom of movement as an answer is unacceptable.

The court also notes that the family continues to live in Norway and that they have two children below school age who will grow up here. Therefore, there must be aspects of Norwegian society that they, in sum, perceive as more positive than the negative ones.

The verdict was a clear statement of what the Norwegian state demands of its citizens, according to the law. And it was historic. It was the first time a Norwegian court declared?and in blunt language?what citizenship entails. Reactions varied accordingly: outrage from many members of the Muslim com munity; satisfaction from many others.

Mohammed Bouras, chairman of the Islamic Council, de clared: "This is an insult to all Muslims. It implies that we are bushmen who do not follow Norwegian laws and rules!" It was the issue of citizenship and the judge's emphasis on the duties entailed in taking Norwegian citizenship that so caused his wrath. He was also quoted as saying, "The charges and the verdict are an offense against the family and us Muslims. The judge is requiring us to respect Norwegian laws, but does not show us any respect."16 Mr. Bouras had been a witness for the defense.

This content downloaded from 69.133.21.254 on Tue, 16 Jan 2018 16:37:13 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

70 Unni Wikan

Others were quoted as saying, "This is directed against us Muslims! The Norwegian state does not care about Nadia. They are just using her against us."17

It was clear that the verdict had added insult to injury. "Justismord!?Miscarriage of justice!" cried an editor and friend of Nadia's family.18 "A declaration of war!" announced a promi nent journalist.19 His concern was that by not making any concession to Nadia's parents, the judge and jury had not just done injustice to them, but antagonized the Muslim commu nity?and reactions were bound to come. There was nothing wrong with the sentence, as he saw it; it was the premises of the verdict that were unacceptable: "[Saying that] the parents ought to know how Norwegian society functions and that it is they themselves who have chosen to live here?[is] a form of paternalism {besserwissen) that can only be like salt in open wounds," he wrote.20

Nadia's parents appealed the verdict on the spot: the defense attorneys recommended it; their honor demanded it; and the monetary fine seemed an insult. I believe they would have been happy not to have to go through the whole ordeal again.21 But such a recourse seemed precluded in the setting. I also know there were members of the Moroccan community who wished they would accept defeat on the grounds that their case seemed too weak, and the evidence against them too strong. But in the end, their efforts to appeal came to no effect. Nadia's father died of his heart disease six months after the

trial. The Norwegian state subsequently withdrew its charge against the mother. Her brother, who wanted to proceed with the case, tried to appeal to a rarely applied section of the law so as to appear in his father's stead. But he was refused, to the mother's relief. So far, an open reconciliation between Nadia and her mother and younger siblings has not been possible, due to her brother's rage. At eighteen years of age, he is holding the family in thrall, set on defending his honor. Nadia is living by herself and managing relatively well?though suffering greatly from her father's death. There are those who say that Nadia caused his death. But it may be well to remember that accord ing to Islam, the time of one's death is written at birth. It is foreordained and cannot be changed.

This content downloaded from 69.133.21.254 on Tue, 16 Jan 2018 16:37:13 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Citizenship on Trial: Nadia's Case 71

Nadia's case poses a number of basic questions: what are the limits of cultural tolerance? How do we balance respect for human rights with respect for cultural difference? What of the rights of the child versus the rights of parents? And how do we enforce the law in the case of violations that were committed with the best of intentions, such as to protect one's child from harm? Religion is also an issue: should not Muslims, for ex ample, be granted respect and the right to bring up their daugh ters in accordance with their religion?

These and other issues came to the fore in Nadia's case, and though the court attempted to reach a solution, as perforce it had to, I think no one who witnessed the trial felt that there were any winners. Nadia was reported by her attorney to have said that she was glad the court believed her. Beyond that, she has made no statement. Her case split a family and caused irreparable suffering. I, for one, said in court that it might have been better if it had not been tried. Mediation might have been better. But in retrospect I have my doubts, having come to realize how hard the issues were. And as the jury said in its verdict, the graveness of the crime demanded that it be tried.

The power of Nadia's case lies in the resonance of its story through time and place. One need not be Norwegian, or Mus lim, or Moroccan, to be drawn in. The issues are universal, the (re)solution was particular, but anyone can take the various elements and move them around?"play" with them, if you wish. It is just that in real life, something must be done. If not, that too has consequences. Real consequences.

* * *

"Citizenship in Western liberal democracies is the modern equiva lent of feudal privilege?an inherited status that greatly en hances one's life chances," wrote Joseph Carens.22 Let me end with a story that complements Nadia's case and throws it into relief. It highlights some of what remains to be done if the thrust of Carens's dictum is to be borne out, and pertains to the plight of the child. In 1994, three-plus years before "Nadia," another Norwe

gian girl, fourteen years old, was brought out of the country to

This content downloaded from 69.133.21.254 on Tue, 16 Jan 2018 16:37:13 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

72 Unni Wikan

Morocco, her parents' original homeland. They too were long time Norwegian citizens. I shall call the girl Aisha.

Like Nadia, Aisha had appealed to the child welfare agencies for help due to her father's violence. Unlike Nadia, she came from a family well known for its malfunctioning. To be brief, both Aisha's urgent appeals and those of her teachers on her behalf failed to impress the child authorities. After a brief respite with a foster family, Aisha was reunited with her family by force. Two weeks later she was taken out of the country, and not heard from again until four years later, when she reappeared in Oslo. Meanwhile, she had been married by force and had her schooling interrupted, so she is left without even an elementary-school certificate. She also is a Norwegian citizen, but all attempts on her school's and my part to make Norwe gian authorities intervene for her failed.23 As one significant document states: "Because she has gone with her family to her homeland [sic!], Norwegian jurisdiction does not for the time apply to the family."24 With the hindsight of Nadia's case, we can see why that

would be. Aisha was only a child. Nadia was, after all, an adult?according to Norwegian law. Hence, it would be much more difficult for Norway to intervene on Aisha's behalf be tween Aisha and her parents. Also, Nadia struck an alarm: she managed to get to a telephone. Aisha never got to that point. There are other relevant contrasts, too. But the main point has been made: it takes more for a child to be heard and have her or his rights as a Norwegian citizen protected than for an adult. Therefore, the rights of the child must be strengthened, espe cially when dual citizenship is involved, and particularly for females.

Because of Norway's failed effort to stand by this citizen, she has been subjected to forced marriage?something Nadia was spared. When she now is back in Norway at all, it is only because she is being used as merchandise (vare), as she says: to bring in a husband who would not get a visa but for her. This is called "family reunification."

But Aisha defeated her family: she ran away. To her surprise, her father, who had threatened to kill her, gave up her passport and marriage certificate to the police when they came to his

This content downloaded from 69.133.21.254 on Tue, 16 Jan 2018 16:37:13 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Citizenship on Trial: Nadia's Case 73

door requesting them. She now wonders if he has taken a lesson from the Nadia case. Is he afraid they will cancel his social welfare benefits too?

Family reunification is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it exposes the children of immigrants in Europe, not just Norway, to immense pressure to comply with arranged mar riages, and in many cases to real force. In Pakistan, for in stance, marriageable girls in Norway are called visuni?visas. And Norwegian-Moroccan girls are spoken of as gold-edged papers. But on the other hand, family reunification is a salva tion for girls like Aisha and many others who return to Norway thanks only to their quality as "visas." If not for that, many more girls might have become missing persons.

Nadia's case has a moral lesson, as I see it: human rights must take precedence over what may be termed, for lack of a better expression, cultural rights. Human rights are based in moral individualism: they are entitlements of the individual as against the state, the family, the church, or other controlling powers. And they apply across the board in liberal democra cies. There can be no distinction made on the basis of ethnicity, religion, or other factors. Equality applies, as does the right of exit from the group, as Nadia and Aisha have chosen. The policy implications are these: a plural society requires a social contract to protect the rights of all members. A strong state, not a weak state, is the best guarantee of human rights, as Michael Ignatieff, among others, has argued.25 I see the verdict in the

Nadia case as an attempt by the Norwegian state to make a case for citizenship?a dissipated notion that needs to be rein vented in our times. Both Nadia's and Aisha's cases show clearly what is at stake.

Dual citizenship is often presented by academics as an asset, a resource. And so it is, for the likes of them. I hope to have made a case for the perils of dual citizenship. In this, as in many matters, the crucial question is: for whom is it an advantage? Who stands to lose and who to gain? Children, I have argued, may be the main losers, and girls most of all. Would that policymakers and other interested parties will heed the implica tions of Nadia's and Aisha's stories and thus reconceptualize citizenship and realize what is in jeopardy.

This content downloaded from 69.133.21.254 on Tue, 16 Jan 2018 16:37:13 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

74 Unni Wikan

Telling Aisha's story to a friend in Oman recently, and dwell ing on the injustices of the Norwegian state, I was struck by her comment: "She was lucky. She at least had a place to go!" My friend was right. A citizen of a European welfare state, Aisha can now call on help?now that she has lost four years of her life. Sacrificed on the altar of culture at fourteen, she is now ready, and will be helped, to get her life in order and have her human rights protected. She cannot fully appreciate how, but a girl named Nadia helped lay the foundation by changing Nor wegian history.

ENDNOTES

This contact was made on September 10, two days after Nadia's call. This means that the efforts by the authorities to keep the matter secret from media exposure were successful for about twenty days; the news did not break until October 3.

2In fact, an international arrest order had been issued against Nadia's father in case he should leave Morocco.

3I had been called as a witness for the defense, but when I realized that this meant that I could only be present during my own testimony (as applies to all wit nesses), I asked for a redefinition of my status, and it was granted.

4I know more than I am able to tell, since I was also present during a part of the proceedings that was closed to the public during Nadia's testimony. In addi tion, I withhold information that had been given me in trust by Nadia's

mother. I also do not include what I know from telephone conversations with the father's defense attorney, or from private conversation with the Moroccan leader and others. My account is a public account, based on what was revealed in the court and in the media. All translations into English of the testimony given in court, as well as any translations of quotes from other sources, are my own.

5This woman was a friend of Nadia's brother, having been assigned by the child welfare agencies to help him get his life in order.

6There were two interpreters, one in Berber for Nadia's mother, one in Arabic for her father. Since I am a fluent Arabic speaker, I could follow much of what was said by the father (not all, for there are dialect differences between his Mo roccan and my Egyptian), and even a part of the mother's speech, for Berber contains a host of Arabic words and expressions. It was quite clear to me that having translators provided the defendants with a degree of flexibility, as mis understandings and inconsistencies could be attributed to the translators, who also, in some cases, helped the defendants in their answers.

7The point here is one that surfaces time and again in stories of girls kidnapped to the Middle East or South Asia by their parents: they have nowhere to go, they

This content downloaded from 69.133.21.254 on Tue, 16 Jan 2018 16:37:13 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Citizenship on Trial: Nadia's Case 75 cannot possibly escape, even though their feet are not tied and the doors are not locked. The dangers of even attempting an escape are so dreadful that the risk cannot be run, and the dangers of succeeding are minuscule. These girls live under the threat of death, and they are observed in all and everything they do. In only two cases that I know of, among forty-odd Norwegian second-genera tion immigrant girls being abducted and married by force by their parents (or threatened to be married), has the girl managed to escape. See Nasim Karim, Izzat?For cerens skyld (Oslo: Cappelen, 1996), and Hege Storhaug,

Mashallah (Oslo: Aschehoug, 1996) and Heilig tvang (Oslo: Aschehoug, 1999). For an especially harrowing case of a girl subjected to forced marriage though she was "free" to go anywhere, see Unni Wikan, Generous Betrayal: Pluralism and Culture Politics in the New Europe (forthcoming).

8For an extensive discussion of such practices in the case of Egypt, see Unni Wikan, Life Among the Poor in Cairo (London: Tavistock, 1980), and To morrow, God Willing: Self-Made Destinies in Cairo (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996).

9Her father also argued in court that the Norwegian authorities and the police had pressured Nadia into keeping to her original story of falsehoods.

10Nadia's parents owned a house valued at about U.S. $120,000 in Morocco that they used as a holiday residence.

nI cannot help but wonder why she did it, and guess it might be so as to dissuade her parents from trying to marry her by force. Now the mother would know that the virginity test on the wedding night would have the whole family scan dalized.

12This part of the parents' story rings less than true to me. From what I know (and I have many friends within the Moroccan-Norwegian community), people travelling to Morocco overland usually have their cars loaded, for there is a constant stream of people who want to go, and recruiting passengers is a way of sharing costs and company. Thus, finding a driver who is about to go with a near-empty van would take more than sheer good luck.

13Nadia's grandmother's illness was, of course, a key issue during the trial. As proof of their case, the parents presented a telegram they had received from Nadia's mother's brother, saying: "Your mother is ill. Come urgently." And yet Nadia's mother said she did not phone her family in Morocco during the seven days it took for them to reach home; Nadia's father said he phoned the day the telegram arrived but not after. By the time they arrived, the grand mother was quite well.

The jury found the story less than plausible. As stated in the premises of the verdict: when a close family member is gravely ill, one usually uses a phone to convey the message. The telegram appeared to be part of a cover-up opera tion. Moreover, if the grandmother had been so ill, one would have expected the parents to make contact during the seven days.

14As Nadia told the story in court, she had been forbidden to tell the family in Morocco that she had been forced to come. The appearance was to be given that she did it voluntarily.

15This caused quite a stir when it became known through the media. Several prominent Norwegian women, among others, were appalled to be so desig

This content downloaded from 69.133.21.254 on Tue, 16 Jan 2018 16:37:13 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

76 Unni Wikan nated and voiced their complaints in no uncertain language. Their critique was directed not just at Nadia's mother but at other immigrants who enjoy the fruits of the Norwegian welfare society while deprecating its basic values of equality and freedom. Nadia's mother was devastated by the reaction she had triggered, and I tried to cushion the blow by telling the court and the media that to call someone "whore" in the Middle East is no big deal: it is a common swearword devoid of the literal connotations it carries in the West. This does

not deny the fact (as I did not say) that Nadia's mother may well have meant that Norwegian women are whores.

16Cited in Dagbladet, 11 November 1998.

17Cited in Aftenposten, 11 November 1998.

18Comment made outside the court immediately after the verdict (cited in Dagbladet, 11 November 1998).

19"Declaration of War" was the headline of a commentary on the court case by Peter Normann Waage, a prominent Norwegian journalist, who covered the case for the newspaper Dagbladet.

20Ibid.

21I base this judgment on four sources: talks I had with the mother the evening before and her public statements that all that mattered to her was to be recon ciled with Nadia; Nadia's testimony in court that her father had actually wanted to release her in Morocco once the ambassador intervened, but that it was the mother's family that was wholly against it; the father's heart disease; and reports from a close friend and trusted person in the Norwegian-Moroc can community that the father came to him shortly before his death and ex pressed his regret that he was forced to continue with the appeal.

Whether he wanted to or not, the father had little choice but to proceed with the appeal for the sake of the family's honor. The fact that he had married into a family far above his own family's standing complicated matters further. His marriage to Nadia's mother appears to have been a love marriage conducted against her family's wishes (which might have been why they went to Norway in the first place). To jeopardize her family's honor further by refraining from launching the appeal would have been out of the question, as I understand it.

22Joseph H. Carens, "Aliens and Citizens: The Case for Open Borders," The Re view of Politics 49 (2): 1987.

23I was contacted by the school and asked to help after Aisha had disappeared. For further descriptions of the case, see Wikan, Generous Betrayal.

24Because the case was confidential, I cannot reveal the source of this quotation. But it stems from a superior official body (not a court) to which the case was appealed.

25Michael Ignatieff, "Whose Universal Values? The Crisis in Human Rights," Praemium Erasmianum Essay, The Hague, 1999.

This content downloaded from 69.133.21.254 on Tue, 16 Jan 2018 16:37:13 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms