Now, let’s be clear about a couple of things right from the beginning: First, all other things being equal a liberal-democratic society should have no problem accommodating a multiplicity of different cultures, and the traditions and customs that go with them; Second, in a free society, again with that proviso — all other things being equal — the way people dress in particular should be entirely their affair. As general propositions about Western society, few would disagree.

But with the French parliament’s decision to ban the burka this week in mind, it is a sign of the shallowness of much of Europe’s liberal establishment that no greater level of sophistication about such issues, and the profound implications they entail, is currently possible. The burka ban has been variously described across the continent by bien pensant opinion as “racism” “bigotry” and “Islamophobia”. So much is to be expected. But in some cases, they have truly outdone themselves.

First prize in the contest for the stupidest commentary imaginable goes to none other then Britain’s very own Guardian newspaper, whose editorial today is in parts laugh-out-loud hilarious. Consider the following, as our heroes summon up every ounce of conceivable insight to deliver what they presumably regard as the coup de grace on French and, by extension, Western, hypocrisy:

“Users of the metro or underground learn instinctively to avoid looking each other in the eye. It is regarded as an intrusion. And yet no state legislature would think about passing a law that bans the wearing of sunglasses indoors on the grounds that it poses a threat to national security”.

I promise readers that I did not just make that quotation up. A form of dress so extreme in its oppression of women that it forces them to hide their faces from society and that thus represents a form of subjugation unheard of in Europe since the witch burning days of the Inquisition is being compared to keeping yourself to yourself on the underground railway system, or the wearing of sunglasses.

As we have seen many times, the liberal-establishment’s anti-Western, third-worldist prejudices trump pro-Western, enlightenment notions of universal rights at every turn. And the commitment to such prejudices is so intense that it must be upheld even at the expense of inviting ridicule.

But that has all been said before, and is no longer controversial among those who are not themselves part of that liberal establishment. It is the sheer inability to access any form of profundity whatsoever in this discussion that really leaves one flabbergasted. For here is how the Guardian chose to introduce the above quoted thoughts a few sentences earlier:

“…what is it about the invisibility of a woman’s face that is so challenging to western European identity? What is so important about the niqab that gives the state the right to intervene?”

It is fascinating and revealing that such questions are deemed by that mindset to be rhetorical. But here is the answer that people less blinkered than the editorial team of the Guardian would immediately want to proffer.

Quite apart from the inherent oppression of women, the central point here is that cohesive Western societies operate under certain unwritten rules which make interaction between strangers manageable. First among these is a skill which we start to learn as babies and develop as adults: the range of human reactions to the body language of others, the language of facial expression in particular.

It’s an inexact science and some are more proficient at it than others. But the unspoken assumption that we all have the right to a fair crack at understanding the intentions of others is the only way our societies can exist without the kind of extreme levels of police control or the stifling social conventions that exist in alternative forms of society. This is how a free society can and must operate in the public domain.

That is why — if it started to happen — we would not allow sections of our youth to walk around our city centres wearing commando-style balaclavas, with three holes for the eyes and mouth. That is also why no supporter of liberal-democratic values is remotely concerned about Muslims wearing headscarves on the street — covering the hair challenges no-one’s ability to interact normally with others.

Probably the best counter-argument to what the French parliament has just done is that it is using a sledgehammer to crack a nut: so few people actually wear the burka in France — possibly just a few thousand out of five million Muslims — that the proposed new law is actually vindictive.

In most cases, that would be a reasonable proposition. But in this case it is flawed, for two reasons.

First, the problem is not trivial and the fact that only a small number of people are part of it now does not mean that that number will stay small in the future. If it’s wrong and socially dangerous, a line has to be drawn.

Second, the notion of a challenge by some important sections of Europe’s Muslim community to western, liberal-democratic values is not fanciful. From the Salman Rushdie affair, through the gender segregation of swimming pools (in France) to the Danish cartoon controversy of 2005-6 there are myriad examples of Europe partially or fully caving in to pressure from Muslim groups at the expense of Western values. It is important to make an emphatic statement that enough is enough, and that the tide will be reversed.

It may well be that the French burka ban does not in the end become law in France due to the multi-culturalist assumptions inherent in the French constitution. If the country’s highest court rules along such lines (as many believe it will), Europe will have lost yet another battle in the struggle for Western values.

But that is for later. For now, one of Europe’s most important countries has taken a bold step in defence of its culture. The French should be applauded, and we should encourage others to do likewise.