Emmanuelle Ducros 8:55 a.m., March 18, 2024

Every morning after the 8:30 a.m. news, Emmanuelle Ducros reveals to listeners her “Journey into absurdity”, from Monday to Thursday.

A bill will be examined on March 28 in the National Assembly to penalize hair discrimination in the professional environment.

It is serious ?

A bill tabled by Guadeloupe MP Oliver Serva, Liot group, which aims to criminalize distinctions based on “the texture, color, length or style of an individual's hair”.

I went to read the explanatory statement of the law, I found them totally far-fetched... First paragraph: “discrimination linked to hair style and texture are issues widely addressed in the United States and the United States. United Kingdom".

The attempt to artificially import a problem from across the Atlantic.

Indeed, the legislative attempt is based on American examples.

A study carried out by the hygiene product brand Dove in the United States found that two thirds of women of Afro-descendant change their hairstyle before a job interview, as their afro hair could be perceived as “unprofessional”.

Another example cited is that of Michelle Obama, explaining on a TV show that she felt obliged to straighten her hair at the White House

Finally, third point to support the demonstration: a British study from 2009 showed that one in three blonde women dyed themselves brown to “look more intelligent” at work.

There, we are a hair's breadth away from ridicule in the demonstration of victimhood.

Why want to import this debate to France?

Is there a reality of hair discrimination?

The text quotes a sociologist from the Observatory of Discrimination at the Sorbonne.

According to him, our hair can positively or negatively influence career development.

Problem: we have absolutely no studies of any kind to corroborate this assertion.

And good luck proving that your frizzy red hair or bald head cost you your job.

The authors of the bill have indeed found ONE recent French example of hair discrimination.

That of an Air France steward who was criticized for his braids in 2012. Which was recognized as discrimination by the Court of Cassation in 2022, but for a difference in treatment between men and women.

And which could have been for discrimination linked to physical appearance.

A non-subject, therefore.

This hair discrimination does not justify a law.

No: in France, the law already prohibits 25 grounds of discrimination: age, sex, state of health, accent... one specifically concerns physical appearance, which includes hairstyle.

Wanting to include unprovable things in the law, which, in the worst case, are already punishable, what is the point?

At a time when we are trying to get out of a delusional normative inflation, this need to split hairs does not come to fruition.