It was interesting to learn more about the roots of multiculturalism and secularism and the different debats and controversies they bring to different nation such as France and Britain. Eventually it seems that Frane and Britain are quite similar in the treatment given to expressions of multiculturalism, even if France is more severe in the end, for Laïcité is part on the nation's core values. It reassured my belief that laïcité is a touchy concept with cracks and underlying problematic ideas and visions of religions, especially towards muslims, and even more towards muslim women in the public sphere. This text made me question the true motivation of secularism nowadays, whether in France or Britain and the definition and necessity of the concept of norms and differences. In the end, this text made me eager to learn and discover more about the motivations behind secularism, and to hear more opinions regarding multiculturalism and the benefits (or drawbacks) of it.

So this is what multiculturalism is about for some: losing british identity and refusing to move forward and adapt the identity to its changing people.

This reminds me of, and makes as little sense as, the debate over whether or not children should see gay relationships on TV. Right-wings see representation as a threat and a means to endoctrinate and brainwash kids (hence the word "contamination"), even though this is not how gender and sexuality works. Here, it feels like it is the same debate; as if seeing muslim people will automatically convert non-muslims into muslims.

This sentence is stricking. It highlights the hypocrisy many people have towards acceptance and differences.

This is becoming confusing to me; there seems to be a parallel between wearing a veil and Muslim extremism. Also, I do not think I had even encountered the term 'muslim extremism' before reading this text and I am confused about its definition. It is supposed to refer to islamic extremism? is it the same thing?

I believe this statement is badly put in words. I do not think this is "western feminism", I do not think it is feminism at all to consider the veil as gender oppression for women.

This feels like an ultimatum rather than a choice.

This argument Begum was given does not sit right to me; it sounds like the women who want to wear forms of the veil - here jilbab - are more allowed in certain schools than others because of their religion. I am also dubitative when it comes to the efficiency and true purpose of uniform policies.

This is still very much up to date. Reading this now, knowing it is from 2009, feels like we have not made much more progress morally since.

This is an interesting way to put it, i was suprise by the accuracy of this; Multiculturalism and secularism may seem contradictory at first, but through this sort of definition they become very similar concepts.

This mistake is funny

In France therefore, the two concepts are seen as ennemies? And since we know secularism is a value of the french government's policies, we may then consider multiculturalism as the "evil ennemy" of the government? sounds controversial

Not sure I caught that, can anyone try to explain with other words?

important here to add "feminine": it raises questions of equality of treatment between muslim men and muslim women.

So, is "Britishness" a concept aiming at erasing multiculturalism?

This is interesting; I did not expect the English and Welsh laws to not consider muslim as racialized. Aren't most muslism racialized in the UK? Why are muslim communities not considered to be a racial group? Do they not suffer from religious discrimination and racial discrimination?