Good grief….. And the doctor was just trying to hear her better on a medical issue concerning a child? And the complaint ends up with overtones of racist or religious discrimination? Talk about nuckin’ futs and this goes well beyond all kinds of discussions that have already happened all around the world where the issue of full face veils in public have been before the courts. Remember the case where the school girls were forced back into a burning dormitory building because they did not have the ‘appropriate Islamic clothes’ on when the fire broke out? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1874471.stm .... 15 girls died.
I have not thought this through completely but it would seem that the fundamental (or at least a compelling) argument against veils is essentially that when in public, everyone should have unfettered access to be able to see the faces of everyone else in the public around them because being able to see one’s face is the essential ingredient of the mutual bond of trust that members of a civil society have in each other. If one wants to exercise their ‘right’ to not show their face, then the other party should be able to exercise their right to not engage in further discourse until the veil is removed. Why? Very simply it’s because the party with the veil has chosen to withhold something that would validate their part of the mutual trust equation. If I’m a shopkeeper and you enter the store with a mask, I demand the right to have you removed from the premises as would be the case with gangster wearing a mask....who obviously is also violating that mutual bond of trust. GB is already doomed as we know but if this doctor does not prevail, it just adds to the confirmation of this fact….
Concur completely. That should be part of assimilation into a country. If they can’t assimilate, then they don’t belong in a country for any extended or permanent stays.