I couldn't agree more. Nor could I have said it better -- even the part about ninjas. Yeah, totally, ninjas. But in all seriousness, on another level this whole face-covering thing is also potentially destructive for any community/society because it says (as Thomas Friedman pointed out in the NYT yesterday --in a different context -- and I alluded to in my shvitz post) "I don't have to play by the rules." And there's no dialogue or community when you can't see someone's face, or when a certain percentage of the community chooses not to show their faces to the rest of the community . . . dangerous ninjas. Sorry . . . fixated on the whole ninja thing. I even have a ninja outfit for my dog . . . seriously.

One last thought: the notion of community might mean something else in countries where women don the niqab, but in Western societies it's just not acceptable. I wouldn't expect to travel throughout one of these middle eastern countries while wearing a mini-skirt simply because it's acceptable in my community. Rather, I would understand that I would have to accommodate the cultures and customs of their country, that I would have to respect what their community deems appropriate.

in a free society, shouldn't one have the right to dress as one chooses? what if suddenly someone said, well, everyone with blond hair must dye it black? we don't tolerate blonds anymore, too tempting and such. so, is it a question of degree of tolerance of other modes of thought/styles of dress or is there another principle operating that in a society committed to diversity (and please don't rebut that Britain is not very diverse, that may be so but on paper these days it aspires to such), you must allow for these differences even when you dislike them?

in regard to what monica writes. yes, one must respect the host country, but there is also something decidedly xenophobic about saying that the woman in the photo should modify her dress to meet Western standards. What happens when a person is not a guest in England but a born and bred Londoner who dresses this way, must she also dress according to your standard?

Liberty isn't extended to citizens in some sort of reciprocal arrangement between cultures. It's extended as a good in itself. The remark that you wouldn't wear a mini skirt in the Middle East and therefore expect the same in reverse in your "community" is risible and offensive. As Sasha has noted, many folk who wear niqabs are British born citizens and are dressing as they wish.   PS Jack Straw in the UK did not call for a ban, though he did say that the niqab does impede communication and thus asked someone to remove it in his constituency office (See http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,,1889173,00.html)

As we all know, ninjas are extremely dangerous.

I suspect that any calls for Muslim women to remove the niqab in order to satisfy the prevailing norms of non-Muslim society will only make the women more militant about wearing it.

Also, I agree that people should generally be permitted without fear of legal consequences. If a country wishes to salvage its culture, it should do so at the border, rather than trying to control the personal choices of its immigrants (or their children) once they arrive.

Still, I think a distinction can be made between forcing a women to remove the niqab, and forcing her to remove it in exchange for some public priviledge. For that reason, I thought it was ridiculous when a Muslim woman in Florida sued the state because they would not give her a driver's license unless she took a photograph sans veil.

The darling from the Times article appears ignorant of her own faith.  The niqab is not a symbol of piety enjoined upon all Muslim women according to the Qu'ran; it was to cover the wives of the Prophet because their duties and responsibilities were considered more serious than those of the population.  They needed extra protection from slander, gossip and impure or lustful speculations.  (There are certain Hadith that require niqab, but the Hadith isn't uncontentious, even among devout and learned scholars of Islam.) 

Additionally--and this is the really great part--the practice of heavy veilings as they later took root in Islamic societies was most often intended to avoid insult to the cultural traditions of a host society in which one was a guest!  In Sura 33:59, the designation that "wives and daughters, and the believing women" should cast these outer garments "when abroad" is quite telling.  One can easily argue that the orginal intent of the revelation is in fact contradicted by the wearing of the niqab when abroad in places where it is not the tradition of the host culture.    

It seems you have attracted a trollbot who has nothing better to do than create id's and post gibberish constantly.