We should never be forced to legislate against our way of life

A panel, commissioned by Jacques Chirac, has recommended that the wearing of Muslim headscarves in schools be prohibited in order to preserve France's secular state. M Chirac is sympathetic. Happily, this policy initiative gave New Labour a rare opportunity to voice its moral superiority over the French.

The public dressing-down fell to the Race Relations Minister, Fiona Mactaggart, who appeared on Newsnight last week. Could the minister ever imagine such a debate in Britain, asked the presenter, Kirsty Wark. Miss Mactaggart could imagine it but the outcome, she felt, would not be the same.

"The British are more pragmatic," she smiled, "which leads to intelligent compromises... When faced with a problem we muddle through." Or make a dog's breakfast of it. One couldn't help feeling that while the notion of banning any religious symbol or item of clothing is repugnant, perhaps British sang-froid on headscarves has more to do with the smaller Muslim population here than across the Channel.

Miss Mactaggart recognised the headscarf controversy for the ethical issue it is. "There is something very important about values here," she said, leaning down into the Thinker's position, and wrinkling her brow just a wee bit with the effort. "We've recognised that it is diversity which is part of our strength. Britishness itself is a very diverse nationality and we need constantly to reassert our diversity," she said puzzlingly.

The minister's definition of "Britishness" would definitely be news to John Bull. The headscarf issue has become the symbol of the Islamists' jihad against any country that won't yield to its sway, from Indonesia to America. This battle has now moved on to European soil. But Western Europeans don't quite have the moral courage to say we are worried about the spread of Islamic fundamentalism in our own lands, so we talk around it.

The French hide behind a constitutional need to protect their "secular" society. They argue that separation of church and state means pupils may not wear a headscarf in classrooms, but may wear crucifixes and Stars of David - if they are smallish. The French want "Islam to be more in the French way, not France more Islamic", as Herve Mariton, of the ruling UMP, put it. "We do not want French society to deform itself." In England, such words would be good for a mild jail sentence and life on the race relations register.

Turkey bans the headscarf in public offices, government buildings and even in its state-funded Islamic Iman Hatip schools. Last month, Germany's highest court ruled that the state of Baden-Wurtemberg was wrong when it banned a teacher from wearing the headscarf but said that individual states could outlaw religious apparel in schools. Seven German states now back legislation to ban headscarves.

The Netherlands, always light years ahead in unhappy trends, is already dealing with the nikaab (the shroud-like garment that entirely covers Muslim females). The Dutch Commission for Equality recommends that it not be permitted on grounds that it frustrates teacher-pupil communication. As good a fraudulent reason as any.

The headscarf battle in Europe is the consequence of immigration policies we have had for the past 50 years. No one wants to talk about that subject either; fear of being called a racist and the spectre of Enoch Powell hover.

For various reasons, Western Europe took in groups of foreign Muslims in numbers too large to assimilate: Germany needed guest workers; France wanted to maintain the fiction that Algeria was still metropolitan France. In Britain, it was the notion of commonwealth with access to the motherland for its subjects. With large enough numbers, people from very distinct cultures can form their own communities, establish their own schools and maintain their own customs in the midst of a foreign environment. This has a distinct effect on the host culture.

One of the reasons an Englishman feels at home in his pub is because its patrons are unlikely to break into song, swaying rhythmically from side to side and banging beer steins. A Brit abroad may find such behaviour enchanting. But not in his own local. Local culture makes people feel comfy in their own streets. Even on the warmest summer's day, one would be disconcerted to see people in grass skirts walking down Oxford Street carrying merchandise on their heads.

The British response to headscarves is to ignore them and murmur the mantra of multiculturalism. This is preferable to the French ban but doesn't come to grips with the problem. When multiculturalism simply meant exotic dishes and craft fairs, combined perhaps with herbal remedies and acupuncture, it was harmless enough. But it began to affect more fundamental aspects of Western culture, such as the educational system.

Some ethnic values, particularly those regarding women and children, conflicted directly with those of the host country. The public began to feel uneasy. Politicians had to start rolling things back, always difficult. Suddenly, the notion of legislation against headscarves or, equally bad if not worse, legislation against our own Western traditions - such as outlawing Nativity scenes or Christmas carols - became a distinct possibility.

This is dangerous stuff. Legislating against an item of clothing or an aspect of religious practice injures such fundamental values as individual liberty and religious freedom. To injure those traditions to preserve secularism or multiculturalism is a poor bargain.

Of course, some women do wear the headscarf simply as observant Muslims. Then there are Muslims who wear it as an affirmation of their separate ethnic identity in a foreign country. They have scant ambition to establish a theocracy but do want to establish their own identities as Algerians or Muslims in France or Britain. Such people are like the professional Englishman living in Bali and wearing a bowler hat. A few eccentric individuals are harmless. But should significantly large numbers of people in bowler hats congregate on one Pacific island, they would disturb the native culture.

There have always been foreign quarters in cities where unassimilated groups lived: the Jews, Chinese, Mennonites and others. But the difference between that and the evolution of multiculturalism - and it is a huge difference - was that the people who chose to live in such enclaves assumed the consequences of their own decisions. They did not expect the larger community to accommodate their dress preferences, their dietary needs, religious holidays and laws. If a job required wearing a safety helmet, they either did not seek the job or wore the required gear. They took it for granted that they would pay whatever price there was for their self-exclusion from the larger society.

This is what has changed. Post-war immigrants expect British laws and culture to adapt to their practices rather than vice versa. And why shouldn't they? This is what our muddled multiculturalism preaches. Now, we face laws that may prevent us all from exercising personal choices such as fully celebrating the Christian traditions of this country. Autocracy and theocracy are intolerable. But dictatorial secularism is equally intolerable and more shaming when it is imposed by our own tribe.