Decius wrote:
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.

Coercion through culture is much different than coercion by law. At least with culture you have the option to dissent. In england or here, there's no one putting a proverbial gun to wear the veil and there are plenty of Muslim women who choose not to. Especially among converts.

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

If you feel that showing your face is no different than waving your cock around to gesture to things on the black board, I'd say don't show your face in the class room.

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?

I don't really see wearing a veil as objectively evil. Even the religion of Islam itself and most of its followers are not evil. I can give you a great reason why the freedom of expression is more important than forcing Muslims to compromise their beliefs. There's already a belief among many that the Muslims in many areas are being oppressed. Many are not taking the option to use their freedom of speech to educate, instead people are bombing things. If you start ripping down the Muslims rights to expression, you don't leave to many options for Muslims to peacefully dissent.

As far as the workplace goes, if they tried to rip the yamika off of a jewish teachers head for wearing a hat in the classroom, I wouldn't see that situation being too different from this one. Or even ripping the crucifix off of the neck of a christian teacher. I think that the political t-shirt is different because it might be seen as reactionary or as a part of a campaign. Wearing symbols of what your religion is different because it isn't selling that belief as a t-shirt would. One way is passive and the other is intrusive. I think that might be the line (depending on context, like schoolroom.)

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...)

I think there's an element of the Muslim culture which is nearly exactly like evangelical christians. They don't get that another person's belief's should exist alongside their own. They don't see the same rights which protect their religion as defending those who don't revere it, or worse hate it. I think removing these rights is the wrong way to go if the cultures are going to "meld." It does the exact opposite. It can nearly be used to defend violence.

Also, you might want to check out the arguments in the Muhammad cartoon I made and the 3 new ones I added.

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