I'm entirely in favour of the idea that schools should have more independence from central government, and should be able to set more of their own curriculum and lesson structure, but this idea can have a dark side. As this case shows, some schools may abuse the freedoms they already have:

The principal of an Islamic school has admitted that it uses textbooks which describe Jews as "apes" and Christians as "pigs" and has refused to withdraw them.

Dr Sumaya Alyusuf confirmed that the offending books exist after former teacher Colin Cook, 57, alleged that children as young as five are taught from racist materials at the King Fahd Academy in Acton.

This is plainly, simply and unequivocally wrong. There is not really any need for a debate on the subject; it can be taken as read that such material has no place in a school in Britain. The case raises no greater question than 'why was this not brought to light sooner?'.

In today's Observer, David Cameron makes another pitch to capture the votes of the "liberal left" under the title No-one will be left behind in a Tory Britain. The Guardian and Observer are rapidly coming to occupy the same space for Cameron's Blue-Labour as the Daily Mail and Sun did/do for Tony Blair's New Labour - gaining approval is the party's badge of change in its bid to capture centrist votes.

Cameron outlines what he sees as the problem:

I want the Conservative party to stand for a broad and generous vision of British identity. In a speech in Birmingham tomorrow, I will argue that questions of social cohesion are also questions of social justice and social inclusion. Cohesion is as much about rich and poor, included and left behind as it is about English and Scot or Muslim and Christian. Inspiring as well as demanding loyalty from every citizen will require a new crusade for fairness. A society that consistently denies some of its people the chance to escape poverty, to get on in life, to fulfil their dreams and to feel that their contribution is part of a national effort: such a society will struggle to inspire loyalty, however many citizenship classes it provides.

Leaving aside the issue that I suspect much of the Conservative Party has a much narrower vision of British identity than the one Cameron seems to espouse, there is little that anyone could disagree with there. So what is Cameron proposing to do about this situation?

Fairness will be our most powerful weapon against fragmentation. In America, new immigrants feel part of something from the moment they arrive because they feel they have the opportunity to succeed. It is that belief in equal opportunity that we need in Britain today and it is why the denial of quality education to so many is such a vital part of the cohesion argument.

Again, lets leave aside the issue that the "American Dream" that Cameron alludes to is an illusion for many for exactly the same reasons as he identifies - the lack of a level playing field in terms of opportunity, Cameron does at least here put his finger on one of the biggest levers we have to ensure equality of opportunity - quality of education.

So, one might expect that he would then go on to set out how exactly he will improve education to ensure that equality of opportunity is adressed. But no, not a bit of it. Cameron's exhortations for change amount to just these:

Building cohesion is a social responsibility. Government must enforce the rules of the road - speaking English, teaching history, upholding and celebrating the symbols of nationhood - and we will be absolutely clear about what needs to be done. If the government brings forward these measures, they will have our full support.

But this is about much more than government and politics. We must each do all we can to make this a fairer and more just society - helping others, creating opportunity and ensuring that no one is excluded from it.

Which loosely translates as:

(i) a dogwhistle to Edward Leigh (Faith, Family, Flag, anyone?), and
(ii) actually its nothign to do with us, but its up to all of you.

No policies, then. Nothing to show how he plans to set about improving the quality of education in this country. Nothing about how to adjust the tax an benefits system to lift the poorest out of poverty. Just, once again, a few warm words about a problem.

I highlighted yesterday a thoughtful piece about how the Tory and Labour parties are stuffed with careerists furthering their own ambition. Cameron is trying to talk the language of liberalism. His own party are distrustful of it, and in terms of practical liberal policies, there is nothing there. Clear evidence, then, that it is mere puff to garner votes and thereby advance the career of D Cameron Esq.

There is only one way to ensure Liberal policies are implemented in Britain - and that is to elect Liberal Democrats.

The veil debate refuses to die down. The Guardian's Comment is Free has featured numerous articles on the subject in the last week, with no sign of a conclusion or consensus.

Mary Riddell raises the argument that veils are both a cause and symptom of social division; Soumaya Ghannoushi doesn't like the niqab herself, but believes in the right of others to wear one; Salma Yaqoob argues that the right to choose one's clothing should be defended. It's certainly good to see differing points of view raised, and it's an interesting departure from the usual bland consensus displayed when sensitive matters of religion are discussed.

But there's something a bit odd about this debate: the protagonists all seem to think that there is a 'right' answer to the question and that, once the right answer is arrived at, someone ought to do something about it. Mary Riddell calls for a 'veil-free future', whilst Salma Yaqoob regards the veil as irrelevant to the questions of integration and social cohesion.

To me, this seems wrong. Freedom to wear the clothing you choose is a negative right, which means that nobody else can force you to do otherwise, except in cases where your clothing may break the law (for example, laws on public nudity or, perhaps, certain safety laws). Negative rights simply say that a person cannot be prevented from doing as they choose so long as they do so legally. The core of traditional liberties are all negative rights, including free speech and freedom of assembly. Others are prevented from infringing these rights, but these rights do not confer any special privileges or entitlements.

In short, we have the right to wear what we want, but no right to force others to accept that. This can be demonstrated by means of a simple example: try walking into a bank wearing a motorcycle crash helmet and see what happens. There is no absolute right to freedom of clothing which trumps all other rights. Some would argue that freedom of religion is so important that we must tolerate even extreme religious dress in all circumstances. I'm uncomfortable with this; religion is a matter of choice and I don't think that we should have special rights for self-selecting minorities. Any freedom for Muslims to wear niqabs in all circumstances should also require a freedom for Scousers to wear hoodies.

In the end, I suppose I am reiterating my original point: there's no right or wrong answer here, certainly not one that the government can enforce. Society has to come up with its own answers and its own compromises. Those of a liberal persuasion have to campaign for liberal outcomes, not rely on the government to mandate them. Vigorous debate and dialogue are the way forward, not calls for the government to 'do something'.

Let's start off by saying that people of all backgrounds should have the right to wear just about anything they want to. Politicians have no business interfering in what people choose to wear as they go about their private business and we should deplore any efforts to do so. So if Jack Straw was suggesting that there should be some kind of ban on veils, he'd be wrong. But, from what I can see, he didn't say that; the issue is evidently more complicated.

So, if nobody is advocating a ban on veils, the question is really a matter of social relations. In other words, it's all about individual preference and the relations between the preferences of different people. My preference is to be able to see the faces of the people I talk to; it's easier to relate to someone when you can see them smile, frown or express emotion via the minute facial twitches that millenia of evolution have given us as a way of understanding each other better.

Some veils, such as the hijab (the BBC has produced a helpful guide to the variety of veils for those unfamiliar with the terms) do nothing to hide the facial expressions. But full-body or full-face covering veils such as the niqab and burqa would make it more difficult for me to communicate with someone; being used to seeing faces, it is harder to talk to someone who doesn't show their face.

I don't, however, see what the problem is here. All lifestyles involve tradeoffs and the choice to wear a burqa is one that, whilst it makes communication with others more difficult, might have other benefits. It's up to the wearer to decide if the benefits outweigh the disadvantages. Of course, it's vital that the choice is freely made by the wearer and not imposed, but this applies to almost every lifestyle choice a person makes. It is not necessary to make a specific reference to Islam here; freedom is universal.

So, to put it as simply as possible, people have the right to wear what they want, and others have the right to take a view on that style of dress. Seems sensible enough to me. But this view is not universal:

The Islamic Human Rights Commission called Mr Straw's views "astonishing" and accused him of discrimination.

The Protect-Hijab organisation said the "appalling" comments showed "a deep lack of understanding".

But Dr Daud Abdullah, of the Muslim Council of Britain, said he could understand Mr Straw's discomfort adding that women could choose to remove the veil.

Conservative policy director Oliver Letwin said it would be "dangerous doctrine" to tell people how to dress.

And Liberal Democrat president Simon Hughes: "The experience of visiting their MP is difficult enough for many people without having to consider a dress code."

I don't find anything "apalling" about what Jack Straw said, and I'll quite happily dismiss the arguments of anyone who does. As for Oliver Letwin, branding Straw's views as a "dangerous doctrine" is going much too far, though to be fair to him he does appear to be responding to a suggestion that Straw never made. The same applies to Simon Hughes, who appears to be responding to the suggestion of a "dress code", a suggestion never made.

This underlines the problem with the increasing 'sensitivity' that surrounds any debate over cultural values. We are often too quick to rush to an absolute judgement, ignoring the fact that in the real, messy, confusing society the lines are much less clear and the situation more fluid. Where people disagree, compromise should be our aim, and Jack Straw was entirely right to raise his views, and he was also right to resist calling for any presceptive measures. This is one issue where people have to work it out for themselves.

UPDATE: Other bloggers on this subject: Alan Beddow, Rob Fenwick, MayorWatch, Mark Valladares.