I completely disagree with your assessment; in a less formal setting, I would say that you should be gracious to your hosts in whatever social situation you meet them in, and obey reasonable rules to the best of your ability. So if I go into someone's house after being invited, and they ask me to pick up a bit when I leave, of course I do it. Or if they follow Japanese conventions for shoes, and ask everyone to take them off at the door and not wear them inside, that's fairly reasonable. But if they push the limits too far, then it's maybe time to speak up, or maybe just refuse to go there. You might say that's one thing Ms. Le Pen could do, refuse to go, but then Lebanon could also refuse to allow her to come, so if both allow it, it seems they've consented in at least some regard. But the meeting has been canceled, so they couldn't come to some agreement; the Grand Mufti can't abide seeing women's hair, so he refused to meet with her.
But I personally see it more as a refusal to follow discriminatory policies against women as well as protest those that do exist in Lebanon, by this move, which is something I can at the very least respect, if not personally go for. Consider this report by the Human Rights Watch in 2015, detailing how discriminatory the laws in Lebanon are against women. It's possible that by this move, she may inspire people in that nation to realize how unjust and terrible such discrimination actually is, and perhaps there will be a push by citizens for a change to such policies. Maybe that's reading into her intentions a bit much, but it could be a happy side-effect of this kind of move.
Consider also the women's world chess championships, being held in Tehran right now. Several women have refused to participate because they were told they would be required to wear a head covering while participating; another, Iranian-born girl was banned from Iran's chess federation for not wearing her own covering. These are clearly discriminatory policies being used against women and they are morally wrong. I don't have an issue with someone, particularly a well-known political figure, taking a stance against such things.
It's one thing to respect your heritage by wearing traditional clothes. It's one thing for society to offer encouragement to wear particular things or avoid other things. Those are fine, and normal in most cultures. But when you force people to wear particular articles of clothing, against threat of imprisonment, you have crossed the line into tyranny and immoral behavior by a state body. It is a discriminatory practice against women, and it is completely unjustifiable in my view.
to me it is improper to judge a sovereign nation's laws and beliefs and involve yourself in influencing them according to your foreign beliefs. there are limits to my belief when it pertains to my nation's national security or if genocide/slavery/trafficking is occurring. commenting on the unequal status of women in the country i would view as significantly less of an insult than a headline grabbing refusal trying to embarrass a leader. i'd expect this to only harden the mufti's followers to foreign influence.
to me it is improper to judge a sovereign nation's laws and beliefs and involve yourself in influencing them according to your foreign beliefs.
I personally see nothing wrong with any of that, as long as you're not forcing your beliefs on to them. That does cross a line I would not cross. But if all you are saying is "I disagree with your beliefs; these are my beliefs, and I will stay true to them even in foreign lands", I don't think there's anything morally wrong with that, although legal trouble may be another matter. I really believe that if you think your nation's ways of doing things are better, there's nothing wrong with going to other places and saying, "Look, this is how we do things where I live; I think it will be better for you if you do things like we do, and I'd like to show you why." Hopefully those people have the freedom and capacity to either agree or disagree with your views, and then push for change if that change is desired.
commenting on the unequal status of women in the country i would view as significantly less of an insult than a headline grabbing refusal trying to embarrass a leader. i'd expect this to only harden the mufti's followers to foreign influence.
Well, judging her intentions are hard to do. Is she a woman who is steadfast in her ways, and does not compromise for anyone, even an important foreign political and religious figure? Or is she a politician looking to win political points by creating a headline? Probably at least a little of both, as I figure she's both of those things. She did meet the Grand Mufti of Al-Azhar in Cairo, as the article states, without any kind of covering; the Grand Mufti here said her office knew it would be required to meet with him, so maybe she thought he would back down once she was there and refused. It's hard to say. Deciphering people's thoughts and intentions is normally very difficult.
And I agree insulting others is pretty useless as an actual persuasive tool. But maybe she's not looking to sway him at all - maybe she's looking to sway others, possibly women who dislike the restrictions placed on them by Lebanon law, and just provide an example that says "you don't have to follow their rules; there are places in the world where you can be free to wear what you like." Again, trying to determine if that's her point or not is difficult to say. I would guess probably not, but I can't say that for sure. More likely it was for her own political gain while also not compromising on her own beliefs.
i tend to be of the belief that if you have enough respect for a leader to meet them on their home turf, you ought to be prepared to obey their customs or else you should wait until they respect you enough meet you on your home turf with your customs. i.e. this was an intentional publicity stunt and thus is an insult to both lebanon and the french people.