On Wednesday, a law was presented to the French Cabinet to ban Muslim women from wearing veils that cover the face for religious reasons. If passed, the ban will call for a fine of €150 (or $185 USD) and mandatory citizenship classes for each infraction.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy told the Cabinet he supports the law: “Citizenship should be experienced with an uncovered face … There can be no other solution but a ban in all public places.” Proponents of the law also say banning traditional garb will liberate women in the secular country from oppressive Muslim customs.

However, the women directly affected have a very different opinion on the matter:

With the law, “They are giving people the right to attack us,” said Kenza Drider, of Avignon in the south, who is married with four children. She was the only fully veiled woman to be interviewed by a parliamentary panel during a six-month inquiry.

“To tell a sister you can’t wear this veil is to say you can’t practice your religion,” said a woman identifying herself as Oum Al Khyr, of Montreuil, on the edge of eastern Paris. …

“They say they are going to free us,” said Drider. But “it’s the state who will force us into cloisters.”

A draft of a new immigration bill proposed by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) has been revised to exclude fashion models from receiving a special status when it comes to obtaining work visas.

Modeling agencies have lobbied for special consideration for almost twenty years, when catwalkers were first lumped into the H-1B class (which also provides visas for foreign-born scientists and engineers) in 1991.

Lawyers for the fashion industry contend that models should instead be grouped with artists and athletes, who receive VIP entry papers known as O-visas and P-visas.

But the newest draft of a bill that renewed hope for foreign-born models has had the special exemption removed without comment. Senators Reid and Menendez say they had nothing to do with the modeling provision to begin with.

The question is, should models qualify for an exemption? Or is it more fair that they have to continue navigating the complex immigration process like everyone else trying to come to America?

As the bright spot in an otherwise dismal year for retailers, J.Crew reported $357.6-million in sales in the last quarter — up 6 percent over last year.

We can’t help but wonder whether the company owes Michelle Obama a huge “thank you” in that regard.

The First Lady has given her stamp of approval to the brand time and again, whether it’s sporting a J.Crew cardigan and mint green pencil skirt while meeting with Prime Minister Gordon Brown in London (pictured left) or while working the talk show circuit. And for her next magazine cover, she wears another J.Crew skirt and a Gap sweater.

All of which explains why so many ethical designers are reaching out to her. There have been calls for her to shop more black designers, and so far she has shown a willingness to bestow her golden touch on emerging brands.

Personally, we’d love to see her shaking things up in American Apparel tees and in that waist-cinching bamboo dress by the Battalion that Maggie Gyllenhaal wore last year. Her famous arms would look great in it!

The Associated Press got us thinking with an article today about how the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have not affected current fashion trends — at least not to the extent that previous wars did.

World War II changed the way Americans dressed forever, the Metropolitan Museum of Art’s Costume Institute says.

Because of rationing of materials, domestic manufacturers began using nylon and rayon as alternatives to silk and wool, and the silhouettes became much leaner — requiring much less fabric.

Style cues were no longer coming from occupied Paris, so American designers stepped up to develop their own casual, separates-driven sensibility. The public was eager to show off its patriotism, making brass buttons and bomber jackets trendy items.

“You haven’t seen the military details in fashion now the way you had previously seen them during wars or in the ironic ways they were worn by the counterculture during Vietnam,” says Andrew Bolton, associate curator at Metropolitan Museum of Art’s Costume Institute in New York.

Why do you think that is? Is it because we’re a much richer country now, and rationing textiles isn’t necessary? Or might it be because the wars are largely unpopular with the public (and especially among left-leaning designers)?

Speaking of moronic behavior , some unsettling news involving American Apparel’s “Legalize Gay” t-shirts in Washington, D.C.  

Local ABC affiliate WJLA reports:

The broken store windows in Silver Spring were discovered Monday morning.

On Tuesday, the Georgetown American Apparel received a threatening phone call related to the T-shirts.

Wednesday, employees at both locations say they received death threats, the spokesperson for the chain said.

American Apparel is standing its ground and refuses to remove the shirts from the window. Cause for applause?

An employee at the Silver Spring store told the reporter that some of her colleagues wish the store would play it safe:

She added: “Some of the employees are kind of unsettled by the fact that we are keeping up the mannequins simply because it does affect our safety here.”

Understandable. The company posted a pretty aggressive response on its blog a few hours ago.

This is a very difficult situation if Beltway area homophobics have the potential to start a national trend.

Emma Sibbles gives a brief history of the slogan t-shirt today over at the Guardian.

In addition to admitting that her famous “58% DON’T WANT PERSHING” t-shirt was basically a publicity stunt, Katharine Hamnett makes some interesting remarks about message tees in general:

“Slogans work on so many different levels; they’re almost subliminal. They’re also a way of people aligning themselves to a cause. They’re tribal. Wearing one is like branding yourself…

What’s tragic is that most of these messages [from the 80s] are still relevant today. These problems – nuclear weapons, world poverty and famine – are still around.”

Past E.S. coverage on message tees here and here. More on Hamnett’s role in ethical fashion history here.

The NYC fashion world — from designers to button makers — has banded together to save the Garment Center, the district of Manhattan where all the apparel companies are based. Soaring rents and weakening retail sales combined with a greater emphasis on Chinese manufacturing has spelled disaster for designers who want to keep their production in New York City.

However, there is hope. On Wednesday, sixty Garment Center workers gathered in Anna Sui’s showroom to show support for the city’s proposal to earmark a 300,000-square-foot building for apparel manufacturing.

Other recommendations made at the meeting, according to WWD:

• Lining up space in 270 West 38th Street for showrooms, warehouses and other apparel-related operations. 

• Establishing a “Made in New York” marketing initiative and use that tagline to name the West 38th Street building.

• Recommending the city recognize existing leases in the Garment Center as rent stabilized.

• Enforcing Garment Center zoning, which allegedly has not happened for years.

• Offer tax subsidies to the building tenants and to those Garment Center tenants that choose to remain in current locations.

Anna Sui and Nanette Lepore are two designers who are lobbying to keep the Garment Center alive. If you care about American-manufactured goods, now is the time to show your support by buying garments made in the USA.

Michelle Obama is drawing almost uniform praise for her sartorial choices as she and the president visit Europe.

She wore a daring sleeveless black frock by Paris-based Azzedine Alaïa (pictured here) to Friday’s NATO summit in Baden-Baden, Germany.

Then the following day, she rocked a virtual United Nations of European designers during a special trip for political spouses to Strasbourg’s Gothic Notre-Dame Cathedral. On that excursion, she wore an Alaïa blazer, an Etro printed blouse, a white tailored shirt by Moschino, and Gunex black pants.

This isn’t the first time the First Lady has thoughtfully chosen her designers to make a statement. Read up on how some people have called for her to put the spotlight on black designers, and how her support of emerging designers could mean excellent news for the ethical fashion movement.

It turns out the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act that’s been such a thorn in the side of outfits that sell vintage and handmade is also a problem for bigger business. 

Rep. Joe Barton of Texas and 16 other House Republicans have introduced a bill to make changes to the law, including setting new dates for products to meet the standards and allowing retailers to sell untested children’s merchandise for one year after the manufacturing standards go into effect. The proposed amendments are expected to face a fight, however, from House Democrats who supported passing the bill last year. 

According to WWD:

Carrying buttons, T-shirts and stickers emblazoned with “Amend the CPSIA,” the executives rallied with several Republican lawmakers and then fanned out across the Capitol to push their case with lawmakers.

“Our industry has seen companies go out of business as a result of this act,” said Kevin Burke, president and chief executive officer at the American Apparel & Footwear Association. “Our industry members are laying off people, and our industry has incurred severe financial losses.”

It’s unfortunate that this is becoming a partisan issue when truthfully the law has more unintended negative consequences than benefits. Sellers of vintage and handmade goods should add their voices to the fight to see this law amended and prevent more textile waste from cluttering landfills.

Shopping local has mostly been a question of food: reducing the carbon footprint of a pint of strawberries or an ear of corn by cutting down on transportation costs and supporting small farms in your area.

But in Denmark, the idea of buying local in fashion has translated into controversy. Last month at Copenhagen Fashion Week, full-page ads ran in the Dansk Daily distributed at the runway shows, urging shoppers to “support your local designer, buy Danish.” According to WWD:

“It was targeted at a consumer audience,” said Eva Kruse, executive director of the government-funded Danish Fashion Institute, which ran the campaign. “It’s to say when you’re going into shops and buying clothes, when you have a Hugo Boss shirt in one hand and a Danish brand in the other, choose the Danish. Support the industry.”

But Danish designers were unimpressed, going as far as to pull copies of the Dansk Daily from their shows.

“This is narrow, really provincial thinking,” said Rasmus Storm, owner of the Copenhagen-based concept store Storm. “I completely understand people trying to protect their businesses, but at the end of the day, the guys who will survive this crisis are those who are forward-thinking, finding new solutions, who are doing a better job every day when they go to work. You can run ads, but at the end of the day, it’s about the product and the brand.” 

The Danish Fashion Institute rebutted that the true purpose of the ads was to get Danish consumers shopping again, as retailers have been hit hard by the worldwide recession.

So who’s right: In an increasingly globalized fashion landscape, is buying local a thing of the past? Or should patriotism guide your fashion purchases?