First of all, I think it's important to say that Jack Straw has every right to say what he has about the veil, and I think he has every right to ask women who visit his surgery to remove theirs. He asks, remember; he does not demand that they do.

There is not a word of his, in print or in broadcast interviews, with which I disagree. I find the veil not just a sign of separation but somehow frightening, so deeply does it clash with the norms of Western behaviour. Maybe it's a subconscious association with criminals who cover their heads.

(BTW, people have asked why Mr Straw should have raised such an issue. Remember that he has a track record of saying things which might seem odd at the time but which, in the long term, turn out to have been prescient. There are few politicians better able than Jack Straw to spot a change in wind and position himself to take advantage.

Back in 1993, when John Smith was Labour leader and the word 'modernisation' was banned, Straw caused an enormous row within the party by publishing a detailed pamphlet arguing that Clause IV should be abolished. Smith went berserk. In his view the way to power was to say and do as little as possible. Quite rightly, that strategy was labelled 'sleepwalking to oblivion' by Nick Raynsford. But as I remember well from my own time at the Fabian Society then, Smith and his rather ineffectual henchman David Ward did everything in their power to stop people rocking the boat with anything so bold as an idea.

Straw did himself immense short-tern harm by upsetting Smith's do-nothing applecart and calling for the end of Clause IV.

But he took the long-term view, however, and when Blair took over the following year his reputation as a solid plodder had been left behind and he was regarded as an on-side A-list strategist by the inner New Labour core.

More recently, he deftly switched from being regarded as a Blair loyalist to being seen as a solid Brownite.)

In the early 1990s I used sometimes to sit in for my then boss, Peter Shore, when he was away or ill, and take his surgery in Tower Hamlets. His constituency included the East London Mosque, and many of the visitors to his surgery were Muslims, some of whom had their faces covered by a veil. I agree with Mr Straw that it was very difficult to interact with them, especially as a number had very basic English.

But.

Mr Straw has emphatically not called for a ban; he has simply raised some of the issues around the veil. Where I start to part company with some people who have commented on Mr Straw's remarks is over the question of the legitimacy of the veil per se.

Melanie Phillips, who is a brave and far sighted writer on the issue of the threat from militant Islam, is I think wrong in this instance:

But more significantly – and Straw did not say this – this type of veil is itself a direct threat to liberty. Clearly, it is a matter of debate within the Islamic world whether it – or, indeed, any type of veil – is necessary to satisfy the injunction upon women to preserve their modesty. What is beyond doubt is that the blackout veil is associated with most extreme interpretation of Islam, which holds that Islamic values must supersede all other values, including those of the secular state. Wearing this veil is thus a political statement of cultural and religious hostility to the British state. Objecting to it, therefore, is not an example of intolerance or religious discrimination. Religious garb should certainly be tolerated, even if it is outlandish; what people wear is their own affair. But this veil is not their own affair. It affects the rest of us because it is inherently aggressive and intimidatory. That is why it is unacceptable.

I simply do not see that the veil is "inherently aggressive and intimidatory". Surely that is a better description for proscribing certain codes of dress. The fact that I do not like to see women in them, that I find it slightly frightening, is my problem, not theirs. What matters is not how people dress, but how they act. If their actions are aggressive and intimidatory that is a wholly different thing.

Yes, many Muslims have spoken up in support of Mr Straw and said they dislike the veil, too. But so what? They choose not to wear one. Good for them. I feel uncomfortable when I see my fellow Jews in full Hasidic garb. I do not think I have anything in common with them. But would I want to tell them to dress 'normally'. Of course not. How dare I. That is how they choose to dress, in accordance with their beliefs.

Daniel Finkelstein writes:

If I have understood correctly, most Muslims feel that the full veil is not a religious requirement and Jack Straw does not insist on its removal. The issue is therefore very different from that of the headscarves ban in France.

Daniel clearly grasps the main point, that Straw is making no demand. But he cites an angle others have also cited: that it is not a religious requirement. What does that have to do with it? Isn't freedom about allowing people to wear a pink bobble on their head or yellow and orange striped jump suits if they want, however disconcerting others might find it? Why does the fact that it is not a religious requirement matter? Let's say the Moonies instructed their members to wear yellow and orange striped jump suits. Why should it being a requirement of being a Moonie make the slightest difference to its acceptability or not as a garment?

As I say, I think Jack Straw is not merely within his rights to say what he has, but deserves praise for raising the issue. And I've not so far read anything attributed to him with which I disagree, since he is simply talking about what he prefers, not what he demands. It's when it moves into the realms of the proscriptive that I think we start to lose sight of what it means to live in a democracy.