Ban the Veil to Protect Freedom

Last weekend, David Davis warned that free speech was under threat, as a result of what he called the "voluntary apartheid" of the Muslim community. On Tuesday, the Daily Express published the results of a poll in which 98% of its readers supported a ban of the veil. Somehow, the UK moved from a concern for protecting freedom of expression to advocating its complete destruction within the space of a few days.

OK, so I didn't really believe that the Daily Express was ever a genuine supporter of liberty and nor do I trust the results of its much less than scientific survey. Nevertheless, they are far from being the only ones guilty of hypocrisy. Following the cartoon row in March, Peter Tatchell was seen at a rally, claiming that free speech protects minorities. This is despite the fact that he has rightly campaigned against the homophobic lyrics of several West Indian musicians. It seems that, for Tatchell, it is more acceptable for people with Western values to express hatred against members of other cultures than vice versa.

The only truly libertarian philosopher in history has been the Marquis de Sade. Anyone who supports taxation, the minimum wage, or laws against racism and date rape, understands that there are necessary limits which must be placed upon liberty. However, what few people appreciate is that, having acknowledged this, considerable thought must be given to maintaining the right balance between the values of different cultural groups. It is not good enough to say it is justified to ban things that have always been illegal but never anything for which freedom has been tolerated in the past. These laws were devised at a time in which Britain was a monocultural society and protect the Little Englander mentality at the expense of other ways of thinking.

When I was a self-proclaimed libertarian, I argued that female genital mutilation should be legalised. I could not see how either the problem of consent or the possibility of abuse were any different from those which arise in the cases of euthanasia and strangulation sex. Now I believe that all three should remain illegal but I still find it hard to accept that a meaningful distinction can be drawn between them. It is doubtless the case that female genital mutilation is a part of religious practices of which we are very uncomfortable while strangulation sex is a glorious British tradition (doesn't it make you proud?) but this is a reason to question our priorities not to accept them unthinkingly.

British people should be proud of our historical commitment to liberty but we also need be able to define its boundaries in a sensible and objective way. Most of all, we should understand that British liberty does not only apply to activities which are stereotypically British.