Burqas and the sense of what is public

Dutch Immigration Minister Rita Verdonk is reported today as saying that it is

"undesirable that face-covering clothing is worn in public places for reasons of public order, security and protection of citizens."

I think I agree with the first ten words, and the rest is rubbish.

This issue seems to me to be a classic area where government should restrain itself and not, as the Dutch cabinet has done, support a proposed direct ban on the wearing of burqas in public places. It should be an issue of how a society deals with questions of civil relations in the public realm; instead, by heavy-handeed pronouncements, it becomes an issue of civil rights.

There are certainly legitimate debates to be had about two aspects: first, on the obvious gender dimension, and the pernicious influence of any religion which appears to be unambiguously opposed to the promotion of equalities; and secondly, on the implications for civil relations of people not showing their face in public.

Religious behaviour and customs do not always exist in their own vacuum: they are part of society and when they spill into the public domain they may have to give ground. I happen to think that how people interact in public places is important and it can be profoundly affected by approachability and the signals of costume. I would like to think that a pluralist society places value on civil interaction between strangers in public places, and we should reflect on factors that might have an impact on that.

I think I'm vaguely uncomfortable about the covering of faces because instinctively I feel my sense of what is public is somehow being rejected: it is a practice, like shaded windows in cars, which says 'I don't have to acknowledge you.'

It's not an overt message, it's discreet, and our instinctive disquiet is similar to our instinctive suspicion of gated communities. But because it's only practised by a tiny minority, it is monstrous and grotesque to imply that it is a serious social issue requiring government intervention.

And for politicians to try to hide this argument behind an argument about the identifiability of criminals, as seems to be happening in the Netherlands and has been attempted in the UK with the wearing of hoodies, is insidious. I'm saddened because I've always thought of the Netherlands as one of the most civilised countries in the world, and I still do; so what does that mean for the rest of us?