terratogen wrote:
From my understanding, it's both optional and a personal choice. Sort of a personal level of commitment to the religion.

It certainly wasn't a personal choice in taliban controlled afghanistan. Religiously optional, yes, the koran, unlike the bible, has no specific decree requiring women to be veilled. Whether its really a matter of personal choice even in the west is debatable. Theoretically these women could choose not to be muslim at all, but how would this impact their relationships with their families and communities. Coersion takes many forms.

Wouldn't this also be a privacy issue as well? Can we make christian teachers take of their blouse?

Can I claim a privacy right to wear a ski mask while teaching school children?

It might be a mark of separation, but why are they not allowed to have the freedom to retain their culture?

You see, this is why I find this matter interesting. I understand your perspective. This cuts very close to freedom of expression, and challenges the boundaries. Certainly they've a right to retain their culture, in private. The question is whether the public's defense of their rights extends to acceptance or approval of something which is objectively evil? Certainly, I can burn straw men to demonstrate that there is a line. Saria law involves stoning people to death and cutting their body parts off. No western society ought to permit this, even if it is a part of their culture. What must society permit public employees to do, while at work, in respect for their culture? The question is, where is the line, and what side of the line are these veils on? Would you not find it difficult to communicate with a teacher wearing these, day in and day out? Is religion a valid exception to any kind of work dress requirement? Why don't other forms of expression get treated with similar deference? Why can't my political t-shirt trump the dress code at the office?

Also, does the minority community, in return for the fact that they live in a society that repects their culture, not owe some respect for the social contract in place in that society? (For example, by not throwing a public protest in Westminster in which they threaten to murder people if they depict the profit?) I think there is a political dimension to this in which tolerance for things like the veil is darkened by the fact that it symbolises a domestic group which can and has murdered people and threatens to continue to do so.... If everything else was fine and happy here it might not be the same, but I think here the government is taking a stand that is within their rights to take, but which they otherwise might not take, to show this group that there are limits to their hospitality. (I'm not, BTW, totally sure that I'm coming down on the right side of this. If the answers where clear it wouldn't make for a good discussion...)

RE: BBC NEWS | Politics | MP tells veil woman 'let it go'