Decius wrote:

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.
...
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

wonderful discussion
I have to say I come down on the side of individual expression in this context
a, because I believe in individual liberty except under extreme conditions
b, because we rightly expect Muslims to accept what they perceive as intolerable insults to Islam and so I feel hypocritical not to similarly defend their rights to the hijab or veil
c, for the more practical reason that Muslims already feel persecuted in our societies and I see no good reason to add fuel to the fire by asking some Muslims to comply on this matter when it adds little to our society and causes a great deal of damage to community relationships. I think things like this fuel terrorism.

These woman are free to choose the veil or not (in law if not in custom depending on what tradition they come from) very often it is a deliberate religious and political statement. There is pressure from elements within the community for women to do this but it is wrong to suggest that many do not make a very deliberate and conscious choice.
I absolutely agree that the debate is "darkened by the fact that it [the veil] symbolises a domestic group which can and has murdered people and threatens to continue to do so". My first reaction was to think of Snow Falling on Cedars. We attack the symbols of our fears. Symbols are very important. On the one hand the veil is symbolic of fundamentalist Islam's treatment of women where in Afganistan women were denied access to little more than a cursory education. It is a symbol of being apart and seperate. I think Muslims have every right to assert a distinct identity as do Jews or the Amish ( the latter being interesting because they physically and culturally exclude themselves -- but they do not fly into buldings or bomb buses). This is about threat and the appropriate response. I say attack Islam on the basis of its treatment of women, homosexuals, the barbarity of certain aspects of Sharia law as exibited in Saudi Arabia and politically the democratic deficit in most Muslim States (although I'm with Fukuyama you build structures and the bedrock of democracy and let it grow from below rather than impose it).
A symbol is under attack and I want to see Muslim women reject that symbol, not because of any coersion, but because they choose to reject Islamic fascism and inferior status but I believe this is only something the Muslim community can decide and specifically Muslim women. I think encouraging a seige mentality only helps the extremists.

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