Most of Husar's response to my comment was fairly coherent and I have no real objection to most of it, but there is one important point - well two - that I want to make.

If we have principles they should, to an extent, be taken as read. I'm English, I'm so English I'm here drinking Early Grey Tea at almost two in the morning. I don't believe in attacking women, full stop, the end, never justified. Anyone who's interacted with me over the last decade should know that - that's not to say that I don't understand why some people attack these women.

Understanding is not agreement, I also understand why these women cover their faces to an extent. It is not, by and large, because they are afraid they fathers or husbands will beat them. No, most Muslim women wearing the Niqab do it because, as far as I have heard and read, they see it a as a necessary part of their faith. If you look at the way they describe themselves they use words like "demure" and "modest". These women believe that by hiding their faces and bodies they are acting in a morally right and proper way - some see it as intrinsically a moral necessity, some see it as a necessity in a Western culture where women are "immodest" and they need to be firm in their faith.

None of that changes the fact that it's a misogynistic practice rooted in the Biblical virgin/whore dichotomy which we would not find acceptable in any non-Muslim context and a practice we ourselves dispensed with more than a century ago (Victorian upper-class women habitually wore veils in public to be demure and modest).