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.