I'm knackered.

Maybe it's the shortening of the days but I am just out of it at the moment. On the upside however the Leeds International film festival kicks off in a couple of weeks, (02-12/10/06) and I am VERY excited about that.

I've got passes for everything and am aiming to see about three dozen films in total so expect a LOT of film reviews, watch this space.

Anyway, let's get right to the heart of this thing: Muslim women wearing full veils, the exercising of an inalienable right or a 'mark of separation'? Perhaps both, here's three angles I've considered anyway.

Firstly there're the practicalities of the workplace.

Would anyone out there argue that wheelchair bound people should be employed as fire fighters? I don't imagine that anyone would, though I'd love to hear it.

Is this discrimination? No. Wheelchair bound people can't be fire fighters for the same reason I can't, none of us are physically capable of doing the job.

When that job involves saving kids from burning to death we, as a society, are quite happy to prioritise the rights of one over another.

It's a thin and risky line to tread, but I think you see where I'm going with this. If a covered face prevents a job being done to the desired standard then you can't have that job and cover your face, regardless of the reason.

The difficulty here comes from defining exactly how much of a barrier a veil would be to a job. From the fantasies of our consumer culture to our most hallowed legal and political traditions, seeing someone's face is a big deal in the west.

Of course there is a case to be made here for integration. If kids in schools were taught by women in veils then they'd get used to veils and the whole issue would be phased out in time.

The counter of course, is that our professionals tell us that kids, especially younger kids, need to see your face to benefit from western methods of teaching.

Now I really hate the lines that being drawn during this 'debate'. Blair tends to evoke a pretty strong gag response in me anyway these days but when he was talking about this I wanted to attack the TV.

He kept banging on about THE Muslim community on the one hand and US in OUR communities on the other. Does anyone actually believe that there is a community in this country of ANY religious denomination?

Do we think that all the Jews or Hindus in the UK know each other and borrow cups of sugar? Of course the Christians don't but that's because they're the majority, they're normal.

The craziness being banded about, and accepted!, about this is sickening.

With the rabid caveat firmly in place and snarling I'll finish off the point I started above.

Integration is a two way thing. Would a woman in a Muslim, Middle Eastern country who refused to cover her head for religious reasons be allowed to teach small children? There has to be give and take.

If a Muslim wishes to wear a veil she is absolutely free to do so and she shouldn't suffer any harassment or unfair treatment because of that. At the same time however, she can't receive any special consideration for it.

This brings us neatly to the second perspective on this, namely: choice.

The media have told us that the wearing of the veil is a cause for disagreement within the Islamic faith as well as without. The significance of this is that the veil is seen as more of a choice than if it were a faith wide norm.

I think this is a pretty weak point. All religious practice is a choice, even if someone's got a gun to your head they only make you go through the motions. Belief is always optional and the deeply held religious belief being argued for in this case is no different.

The significance of the veil being a choice relates to the nature of society's responsibility to the individual. Society has a responsibility to ensure that all individuals are free to live as they please. Society has no such duty however, to make life easy for you.

My concern here is the idea that an act based on a religious faith is somehow different to the same act inspired by anything else. While it may be different for the faithful, it's the same to the rest of us.

The deep conviction a religious person feels may be the most ultimately powerful thing in the universe for them but it is also invisible to the wider world.

If such conviction drives you to make a restrictive lifestyle choice then isn't that just what it costs to lead what you would consider a good life?

As long as society provides you with the basics: sustenance, safety and opportunity, why should it makes changes for you at the expense of others?

Of course this all started when jack Straw commented that he had, in the past, asked Muslim women attending his surgery to remove their veils when discussing their concerns with him.

I have to declare my ignorance as to the exact nature of the rules pertaining as to where and when the veil must be worn, but then I'm not sure there are any definitive rules.

I believe that being in the presence of men is one such condition however. What I'm not sure of is whether a Muslim women could remove her veil for, say, a male doctor to examine her face.

If this were allowed I presume it would due to the professional nature of the doctors role and subsequently wonder how different this is from discussing concerns with your MP, ie. another private consultation conducted on a purely professional basis.

As frustrating as I find the persistent stains of bigotry that tarnish our society, (I heard the word Paki used in the office the other day, haven't heard that for a long time,) I'm equally irritated by people refusing to take responsibility for their own actions.

God says I have to is not a universal get out of jail free card. If it's your belief it's also your responsibility to make it work with the world around you.

This leads us along another seamless transition into the third and final viewpoint.

I'll reiterate my admission of ignorance re: Islamic law, but I believe the whole women-covering-up thing stems from the idea that if men are tempted with the sight of flesh they will commit rape.

Looking at the practice in the fashion reveals it to actually be an idea based on wider and noble motives.

Regardless of what you may think of that particular solution, the idea seems to create a society in which there is no room for violence, a calm society based on thought rather than action.

Suddenly this religion, painted as being so weirdly exotic, can be seen to be headed for exactly the same distant point on the horizon as our own secular society.

The problem is that our society has it's own moral and physical infrastructure in place with the aim of eliminating rape.

We have a legal system and law enforcement authorities to limit the activities of and hopefully deter rapists but we also have complex and unspoken 'norms', standards of acceptable behaviour enforced by peer pressure.

Neither system works perfectly, sickeningly women still get raped all over the world, the question is, is society big enough for these two thoroughly different methods to coexist?

Now as an avid opponent of both organised religion and political democracy I feel I can be objective here in way that many cannot.

In short I'd have to put my money on the secular democracy. For all the deep and dangerous flaws I see, your average man on the street still has more input under such a system than he does under the elitism of organised religion, (ANY organised religion.)

That's the measure, for me, because maximising society's potential lies, for, in getting as many people involved as possible.

Now there's a guy from my very own string-o-beads, (that's Leeds by the way,) currently awaiting execution in Pakistan. He's been cleared of murder in a legal court but then subsequently condemned to death by a religious court.

For all the lamenting / celebrating, (depending on your point of view,) over the reported decline of religion, there's still one hell of a scrap going on as to who wears the trousers.

It's not US, the white Christian British, vs THEM the suspiciously dark Muslims, as Blair seems eager to suggest, but rather it's Politics vs Religion.

The suits and the clerics are hissing at one another to see who gets to tell us all what to do, (when we all know money is everyone's real boss.)

With regards the immediate issue of the veil, it seems to me that if everyone calms the fuck down then a case by case process of trial and error should develop the skills to find an amicable range of solutions.

On a wider scale the clear solution is for to stop listening to guys in suits and guys in dresses, to stop buying stuff and actually make some decisions and take some action for ourselves.

Back down to the smallest scale, ie. the individual, I'm off downstairs to have nice big smoke. Now that seems to break everyone's rules, suits and skirts alike, but it doesn't break mine and it doesn't hurt anyone so you can all fuck right off.

:))