Is the restriction on what to wear justified in all cases or only in some? When does it constitute a constraint on freedom?
The restriction on what to wear is not justified in all cases - it is justified only in some specific situations. Constraining actions by the force of law should only happen when actions cause serious harm to definite individuals. Minor harm should only provoke social disapproval, not legal punishment.
Restrictions constitute a constraint on freedom when they are excessive or out of proportion to the action being restricted. Restrictions must be reasonable – capable of being defended by reason. For instance, school uniforms or cricket dress codes may be reasonable, but forced dress codes like Mao suits in China or fatwas against individuals constitute undue constraints on freedom.
We must not develop a habit of imposing restrictions since such a habit is detrimental to freedom.
Explanation
This answer draws directly from the textbook discussion on reasonable restrictions and the examples provided (Mao suits, Sania Mirza fatwa, cricket whites, school uniforms). The key concepts are: (1) restrictions are justified only when actions cause serious harm to definite individuals, (2) restrictions must be reasonable - not excessive or disproportionate, and (3) society must bear minor inconveniences to protect freedom. The answer addresses both parts of the question - when restrictions are justified and when they become constraints on freedom.