As far as I know there is no European yarmulke-specific ban. But there are numerous headscarf, burqa and veil bans in place or under consideration.

Yesterday I saw a pod on Current TV about Britain's consideration of a headscarf ban, pushed by politicians like Jack Straw. It wasn't the most detailed of their segments, but it showed some of the deep xenophobia behind this movement. As a side note, for those who haven't watched Current TV, they have some very powerful stuff. They filmed in North Korea, revealing how seriously weird and screwed up that place is and showing a wry humor in the process. Their earlier coverage of Haiti was excellent. Their coverage of the Iraq and Afghan wars from the point of view of both our soldiers and the citizens of those nations has sometimes been extraordinary. They have some crap, but some of their stuff is well worth watching.

Back to the headscarf ban.

In France a ban on Muslim headscarves and other "conspicuous" religious symbols at state schools has been in place since 2004. I don't like their law, but it has one advantage of including all "conspicuous" religious symbols. My question is has it been equally enforced? Have Jews been prevented from wearing their Yarmulkes openly? What about crucifixes?

Some German states have headsarf-specific bans, preventing school teachers from wearing them. One wonders world reaction had they made it a yarmulke-specific ban!

In Italy, some local politicians have been sneaky and used antique anti-mask laws to target people wearing burqas. There is some legitimacy to this approach because the focus is on anything that hides the face. One can argue that it shouldn't be illegal to hide one's face (Joseph Merrick might have objected to such laws), but if enforced equally, there is at least a facade of not targeting Muslims.

But now Britain seems to be considering one of the most xenophobic and unfair ban. Jack Straw proposed a Muslim headscarf ban because the wearing of such clothing "harmed community relations." Of course advocating the banning of such clothing ALSO harms community relations, but I have yet to hear anyone advocate the banning of Jack Straw. In fact many British newspapers and politicians are backing Jack Straw's proposed ban on headscarves.

In the CurrentTV pod many of those interviewed supported the ban specifically because the wearing of headscarves is different and therefore separates those people from "normal" society. Of course the same could be said of yarmulkes, crucifixes and the like. Or punk clothing. Or just about anything that so-called "normal" people feel threatened by.

Now I personally find a religious requirement for women to cover themselves up offensive and sexist. But I find it even more offensive to ban a method of dress simply because it is perceived as not "normal," which in this case means not conforming to the majority tastes. Isn't one of the foundations of Western democracy that we have rights to define ourselves as individuals, not merely as members of the dominant culture? What forms of dressing differently are acceptable and what forms aren't? Should Jack Straw be calling for a yarmulke, turban and crucifix ban as well since Jews, Sikhs and Catholics are also minorities in Britain?

I see no reasonable purpose behind most of these bans except to harass Muslims.

Meanwhile, here in the United States, our first Muslim congressman, Keith Ellison, is being sworn in using a Q'ran once owned by Thomas Jefferson. We, of course, have our own crazy xenophobes like Virginia Republican Virgil Goode who claims that if Kieth Ellison is allowed to do this we may see the very fabric of our culture dissolve. Personally I have more faith in the robustness of our culture and the benefits of diversity than the very frightened Goode seems to. I welcome Keith Ellison, Q'ran and all. And I think it says something very promising about America that he is being sworn in with Thomas Jefferson's Q'ran! A Muslim being sworn in using a Q'ran owned by one of America's atheist Founding Fathers really kicks butt.