fatvegan

About 5,000 people marched in Paris wielding French and Islamic flags, along with banners denouncing the ban that French President Jacques Chirac and most of the country's politicians favour.

Only 5000. I'm surprised. This is a fascinating issue - I still don't know what I think. Most countries probably haven't ever tried to confront something this nuanced, so it's more complex than a lot of race-based stuff.

Visual cultural identification probably foster racial vilification. And tend to make Europeans more aware that they are no longer surrounded by only Europeans. Racial acceptance might grow more gently and sustainably if people weren't forced to confront their fears. In American History X Edward Norton didn't confront his fears. But when he was placed in a non-threatening situation where being racist began to look stupid, he eventually changed without even trying.

But that said, one man's racial discrimination isn't another's fashion choice. It's the same argument we use against Muslims and their "oppression" of women. It probably isn't more practical for women to wear less flattering clothing. It probably significantly alters the war men relate towards them. But that doesn't alter the fact that, ultimately, it's the men's responsibility and not the women's.

That's one flaky argument. I think they cancel each other out. Saying you can't wear something, in the interests of the public good, isn't any different to saying you must wear something.

People complain about the homogenisation of society and all that, but I think there are probably bigger issues at stake. If I had to choose between peace and diversity, I think I'd choose peace. Lots of things we do further homogeneity. Psychology is pretty much solely focused on it. Politics is too. Why is "consensus" a good word and "homogenous" a bad one? Milk is homogenised. That's unrelated, but funny.

If there was a campaign to allow women to attend public schools wearing only underwear, would these same protesters be protesting in favour of it - in favour of the right to wear anything? What would happen if a man wore a headscarf? What if the president banned women from wearing any sort of top on hot days? Very floppy hats? What about sexy, silk headscarves?

Clothing is all about hiding nudity and Muslim women are only a tiny bit less nude and everyone else. Although that isn't the reason headscarves are being banned. It's about what else they symbolise. If they were about nothing more than decency, there would be no problem. If there is a successful ban for a few decades, then it will probably be lifted eventually.

I think that if the Christian church mandated the wearing of crosses, I'd be in favour of a ban. I guess modern conceptions of what is truly valuable don't encompass ornamental symbols. If they are mandated then we assume there must be something compulsive or oppressive going on. If a parent forced a child to wear a headscarf we wouldn't tolerate it. If a whole community of parents forced their children to wear it we wouldn't tolerate it. And a secular state probably shouldn't humour a recognised religion any more than it does any random community of people.

If young girls weren't forced to wear them, but later chose to, there would be no problem with them. The fact that the focus is on schools perhaps suggests that this is one of the reasons. It gives young Muslim girls a way of standing up to their parents.

I don't know if it's a good thing. I don't like the sound of it. It might force Muslim girls out of the school system. Parents who are so attached to it, that they'd prevent their children from going. You can say that if the scarf is more important than education, then it really has gone too far, but it's young girls who will be ultimately affected.

I have no idea.