I understand both your argument ("can't legislate morality, it's counterproductive") and the diarist's ("can't we all get along, this is a freedom of expression issue").

But at root, I disagree with both.

In the "can't legislate morality" case, I agree, we cannot legislate the content of morality. But we can influence (or reduce that influence, as in this case) one group's attempts to forcibly impose their set of morality upon another, largely unwilling group.

An example, perhaps a bit more extreme in content but all the same along the same lines: we might not be able to get men to stop thinking it is acceptible to beat their wives (and yes, imams do preach this and have been expelled from France for this), but this doesn't mean we should simply stand back and accept that they do so. There are very good public policy reasons not to accept this, not to mention moral reasons. Similarly, we might not convince islamists living in London to stop wanting to force their daughters or sisters to wear a veil when they go to school, but when we legislate that no one can wear one at school, we're supporting those majority who do not want to wear it, but are forced to.

So no your opinion does not directly support this patriarchal treatment of women, but indirectly, in many cases, it does.

I also get the freedom of expression argument, but as a matter of course, as long as we're all in a cohesive society, with strong solidarity mechanisms, where I help you and you help me under agreed-upon conditions (almost as a contract) as is the case in France (and should be moreso), there must be a mutual respect of individual and community. Community supports the individual, and the individual adheres to community standards.

And what those standards are is a matter of interpretation and taste. But if there are standards, there are standards, and those dictate the limits of acceptable expression. The limits have a political determinant of course, and there needs to be respect for proper minority rights under the universal declaration of human rights. But end of day, if you chose to live outside of the limits of acceptable expression, you break that contract which underpins solidarity, just as in undermining the mechanisms of solidarity, you break the contract which underpins cohesion. It's a two-way street.

I personally side with those who would strengthen both cohesion and solidarity, for in my view, you cannot have the one without the other, and this is exactly what we see in Europe today. Declining cohesion, and the so-called welfare state is under attack.

This is not a coincidence.

The Hun is always either at your throat or at your feet. Winston Churchill