Background

Discussions initially focused on the appropriateness of comment; given Jack Straw's hearing and nature of the request being made. False claims of religious or racist prejudice when limits. In Turkey (where the veil is banned in public) or the university in Oman, the issue was no doubt discussed with clarity and without insinuation of prejudice. The motivation of those commenting is an entirely different debate and one which is purely speculative. Valid points have been made by the most despicable people and vice versa. The pre-emptive "you're offending/picking on me, so stop talking" accusations haven't worked in this case; "wolf" has been cried once too often.

The main questions appear to be:
1. Are there situations where obscuring one's face is inappropriate?
2. Does even asking such a question really make a person an active participant in the "anti Islamic" agenda?

The right to express a point of view is more worthy of defence than the right to wear anything anywhere. The veil is at the crux of important issues of tolerance and integration and such is most debatable.

Polarisation and separation.

Is this caused more by the debate or the garment? It seems ironic that by merely considering a garment to be separatist others may accuse you of social polarisation. Debate doesn't create so much as it exposes  the pre existing rift in opinion; it is clear that there are very different ideas as to what "segregation" is or isn't. It is a polarisation to suggest that a valid argument can't be had due to prejudicial behaviour of others racists which makes the papers.

The myth of freedom of dress.

A crash helmet might have a special significance to the Stig, but it doesn't mean he can wear it wherever he wants - we are all bound by dress codes which exist for a number of practical reasons. The naked rambler has no right to sue a company for not employing him. The word "uniform" means something, and although children and rambunctious teenagers don't like it at school we are all obliged to adhere to dress codes. Football colours are banned in pubs, shirts without collars in golf clubs. No shoes, no shirt - no service. Political uniforms were banned in the public order act of 1936. Would a police officer be permitted to mask their identity?

For Hindus, Buddhists and followers of Jainism, a certain symbol holds a special meanings of "good fortune" or "well-being". Does this make it appropriate for one to emblazon their clothing with the Swastika given the western context? The contemporary white gown with a cone hat follows the Spanish Roman Catholic "Nazareno" tradition, where such garments have been commonly used since time immemorial in festivities such as the Holy Week symbolizing the act of penance; it also has a druidic tradition. Does this mean mean we should allow people to wear a mask more often associated with the Klu Klux Klan? Modern Druid groups have taken the sensible step of not wearing white hoods that cover the face by their members because of this association.

The occurrence of "shock" clothing is nothing new; long hair, no hair, tattoos and such like. The disaffected often demarcate themselves as different then complain about being treated differently. The right to do something yet not suffer the consequences of its negative associations? There are however, definite differences between the teaching assistant and the girl who claims it is her right to go to school with multicoloured hair.

Practical aspects

There are certain undeniable facts of the importance of facial expression for communication and establishing identity. Feedback and emotional understanding, building trust, lip-reading and learning languages are all hindered by coverings. Driving licences, passports, work IDs and other environments such as banks and post offices where the face needs to be shown for security reasons. Sensible safety issues, such as peripheral vision when operating machinery or driving cars. Integration issues such as participation in sports, recognition of people who aren't close family members. How about not being able to eat or drink in public, being excluded from invitations to lunch, to the pub, for a coffee, for a sandwich.

The veil isn't religious per se.

The closest verse the Islamic holy books have is one which mentions the women folk covering their breasts and private parts. No reference to a veil is ever made. Parallels made to other religious accoutrements which don't cover the face are missing the point entirely. The practicality of the issue is unaffected by whether the item in question is religious, cultural or both. The claim of it being part of a personal cultural heritage is also a misleading; for some it is long established tradition they have indulged in for a whole  6 months. There is no absolute right to wear national/cultural clothing when practical issues are involved. The law of freedom of religious expression do not override this.

Symbolic connotations

Taking a symbol with negative connotations, claiming that it has the opposite of the conventional meaning, allows the wearer to claim discrimination when people attempt to stop them. In this "badge of honour" mentality the negative attention or disagreement affirms the belief of victim hood. By some it is viewed as a passive aggressive symbol of defiance.

The veil isn't 'just' an item of clothing,  it is a sign of an extreme belief in Islam which is inherently political; the idea of holy law is one which is bound up in these primary beliefs. A outward display of holding less moderate beliefs is not just a way of dressing but a way of living. It has negative connotations in the west for a range of reasons. One word: fundamentalism. On top of obscuring one's identity and  facial expressions, there are patriarchal, misogynistic, homophobic and anti-Semitic associations which make it unrealistic not to expect to be treated differently. Not to mention views on morality, free speech and integration.

To claim the veil to be a positive choice without negative aspects; denies the seriousness of the subjugation of women in other lands. When wearers of the veil deny the negative implications, how can it be such a bad thing that woman in other countries are obligated to wear it? At a time in the 21st century where a transplant solution has just been developed for people with severe facial disfigurement, others "choose" to remain faceless.

The veil isn't just a symbolic of oppression, it is a tool itself; with definite connotations of segregation and patriarchal rule as evident in certain countries where objectivity has already departed and women can't drive cars, do jobs and so forth. It is clear that these woman are not "making a full contribution to society", at least, not by any western definition. The higher the degree to which women are fully veiled, the lower the level of their social and political emancipation. The reasons of "honouring god" don't match the religious and cultural facts. "Empowering" for those wanting a certain reaction. A superior feeling of knowing one is more modest than all the western girls? Rabble rousing, rebelling teens, whatever the reason, this is no longer a game.

When the teacher refused to show her face in the company of men, this was a discriminatory choice. A fundamental western value is equality of the sexes and the veil runs counter to that. It is no longer appropriate to infer that "men can't help themselves". The veil is a clear sign that this woman is not available to anyone outsiders. Not just in a more trivial issue of modesty and sexual behaviour; but one of endogamy, cultural integration and ghettoization. It highlights an incompatibility of immiscible cultures.

A disservice to liberal progressive Muslims

It is essential that moderate Muslims disassociate themselves from fundamentalist ideology. This debate is a tiny issue but it is indicative of the whole "integration" question, and a refusal to admit that certain situations are not appropriate for clothing which masks identity can make a whole segment of society appear entrenched, unwilling to debate or compromise.This is an issue which effects a tiny proportion of Muslim women in the UK. There is no religious obligation, however making this association allows supporters rally others under the claim that religious freedom is at stake. It isn't. Sensible rules on where the veil can be worn are not the first step to the erosion of the right to worship. There is a need for visible  internal criticism  from within the Muslim community. This strong criticism may very well exist, and the voice of moderate Muslims is doubtlessly a lot less shouty that those at the margins.

Accusing opponents of racism or oppression makes a whole community appear unreasonable, one's own when the claims are fallacious. Those in the middle ground are dearly hoping for some concessions on such issues precisely to show that debate can be had.  A victimhood complex becomes self fulfilling when one vigorously defends a non-existent right which has practical social implications. The bounds of the argument have to lay within the pre-existing framework this society is founded on: Freedom of dress doesn't exist in the UK, freedom of speech does, and this includes freedom to say things which others won't agree with and may even find offensive.

Where the bounds of acceptability lie

How tolerant should society be? Tolerating everything, makes tolerance as bad as the whatever it permits. We should not tolerate racism or sexism no matter what the sex, race or indeed religion those discriminating are. Is self imposed bondage the same as freedom of choice? It took feminist leaders years to fight for women's rights, often against a majority of oppressed women who at first "chose" to think them outlandish and unfeminine. What of those who choose to live peacefully under a dictatorship? Is Stockholm syndrome also considered a rational viewpoint? The conviction with which veiled women deny any downside makes it even more terrifying. Garments of conviction are often made of logic-proof material.

I do not believe that wearers of the veil are representative of the wider moderate community of Muslims, but of the proportion who are shown in surveys to be extremists: 62% against free speech, 40% in favour of Sharia law, 25% who consider the London bombings to be justified, 29% thought that the holocaust occurred, 28% agreed that they dreamt of Britain one day becoming an Islamic state. Cross-referencing these results, the survey company NOP characterised 9% of the Muslims surveyed as “hardcore Islamists” - people who considered it acceptable to speak in support of terrorism, but thought insulting Islam should be made illegal. This is an identical proportion of hardcore opinions as would be expected in any sector of society.  ( http://www.ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/291)

It can be agreed that politicized fundamentalist version of Islam is entrenched with the concept of Sharia law. Islam is said by many follows as not being a religion, but a way of life. Full face veils aren't a religious obligation but a demonstration of strong fundamental beliefs. The niqab is not just a garment, but a statement of the wearer's politics, and as such contravenes the 1936 act banning political attire, such as the fascist blackshirts. This public order act was originally designed specifically to improve race relations by preventing the use of inflammatory symbols. Certain words, phrases and symbols are very powerful motivators; defined the impression they give, and not the "supposed meaning". If in the majority view the niqab is a symbol of a religio-political ideology; it is so. If this ideology is in support of ideas which are at complete odds with currently agreed standards on equal rights and religious tolerance, which are quoted as excuse for the veil. Freedom of worship?  Apostasies who renounce their religion, as stated in the Hadiff, should be put to the sword. Equal rights for women and gays?  Some people don't think so.

If strongly politicized Christianity threatened the stability of the UK, the banning of the cross would be appropriate too. Faith should be a personal issue and not an outwardly displayed badge that screams the superiority of one's system of values. Freedom of worship is very different from freedom of dress. If reasons of practicality, security and integration weren't enough...the symbolism of extremism is what really harms public order.

Secularism -Laïcité is needed to make the UK a safer, better integrated and less corruptible society.