The original words were measured and thoughtful. That did not stop Jack Straw’s article in the Lancashire Telegraph being denounced yesterday as “very insensitive and unwise” by the Lancashire Council of Mosques and “selectively discriminating” by the Islamic Human Rights Commission. Somewhat strangely, others insisted it was a bid for votes in the Labour Party deputy leadership contest. And those comments came before interviews yesterday when the Leader of the House of Commons said that he thought community relations as a whole would be enhanced if the veil was not worn. Mr Straw confessed that he had “thought a lot before raising this matter a year ago, and still more before writing this”. After the disproportionate reaction in his political backyard and beyond, he could be forgiven for regretting it.

Yet, he emphatically should not. Mr Straw finished his opinion piece by asking: “But if not me, who? My concerns could be misplaced. But I think there is a real issue here.” If a Member of Parliament with more than 25 years experience of representing a highly diverse community cannot, or chooses not to, share openly what he observes, then few less qualified figures in the mainstream of national debate are likely to be bold enough to enter this terrain.

To deem silence preferable to sound chimes with the creep towards censorship. The barrage directed at Mr Straw has occurred with depressing regularity. It has taken place whether the individuals are internationally famous, including Pope Benedict XVI; obscure, such as Robert Decker, a French philosophy teacher, whose analysis of Islam outlined in Le Figaro last month led to death threats and him being forced into hiding; or virtually anonymous, notably the Danish cartoonists whose drawings were blamed for violent riots months after they were first drawn.

These are not questions that will disappear if public figures or private citizens decide that it would be “causing trouble” to intrude into them. It was disturbing yesterday that some senior members of the Conservative and Liberal Democrats, while affirming that Mr Straw is entitled to his views, appeared to hint either that he should have kept them to himself or took the chance to assail the idea of anyone ever telling anyone else what to wear (which Mr Straw did not actually do).

Furthermore, Mr Straw is right to conclude this is an important issue and that community relations might be improved by genuine face-to-face contact. There are, admittedly, various reasons why Muslim women might adopt the niqab or burka. Not all of them relate to cultural conformity or male oppression. Freedom of expression includes the freedom to dress in a manner that others might find alien.

The outcome in this instance, nevertheless, is a barrier between people and peoples. Mr Straw worries about the veil being a “visible statement of separation and difference”. This understates the matter. There are numerous modes of attire — religious and secular from priests to punks — that indicate separation or difference. What is unique about the veil is that it precludes a basic form of human contact in a way which the Sikh turban or the Buddhist robe or the Christian Cross do not do. There is a subtle but crucial distinction between separation and isolation. It would plainly be inappropriate to legislate in this area. It would be even more mistaken to pretend that the veil is simply another item of clothing when lifting it might let in light.