I have run a few risks in my life but the danger of inconspicuousness has always passed me by. As a result, I have a natural sympathy for people who stick out, whether because of fate, faith or character, especially when the rest of the world is telling them to fit in.

The issue of the Muslim face veil, which has been the talk of England this past week, is a peculiar one, however.

It attracts my attention for various reasons, as a champion of individuality, as a politician with a deep concern for equality, as a lawyer with an interest in human rights, as someone with an interest in cultural history and, finally, even as a resident of a country, Belgium, that has followed France in banning face veils.

In England, the issue has made the headlines because two cases arose almost at the same time.

One concerned a courtroom. A woman, who is being prosecuted for intimidation, wants to wear the niqab, a facial veil, in court. She says it is for religious reasons.

At first the judge was reluctant to grant her any concessions. He thinks the jury may reasonably want to reach some conclusions by looking at her, her expressions and gestures when testimony is being given, particularly by her.

I can certainly vouch that, in my own courtroom experience, juries form judgements on appearances as well as heard testimony.

In the English case, the judge changed his mind. Having ruled that she would have to unveil herself in the courtroom, he then reached a compromise.

She may wear the niqab but she will have to unveil while testifying herself, although she will do so behind a screen where the jury but not the spectators can see her.

The second case concerned Birmingham Metropolitan College, which had a ban on all veils, ‘hoodies’, hats and caps on its premises, although something tells me the last two were banned to avoid charges of religious discrimination.

After 9,000 people signed an online petition requesting the ban’s reversal, however, it was lifted.

The motivation given by the petition is interesting. The ban was described as an infringement of the rights of freedom of cultural expression and of religion. So far, so much expected.

The ban, though, was also condemned because it violated a woman’s right to choose.

That is very interesting language for a lawyer. It deliberately adopts the language used to defend women’s right to transgress against traditional norms!

Such wording uses women’s modern aspirations to justify the wearing of clothing whose detractors consider medieval rather than modern!

The anti-veil lobby wishes to protect young women from being coerced to wear clothing that will make socialisation more difficult, from school onwards.

But the anti-veil lobby ends up itself being accused of wanting to coerce these young women by stopping them from wearing what they want.

The argument for integration can’t be won through laws and regulations

Because of such complications, a Home Office minister, Jeremy Browne, called for a national debate on the issue.

Three legal and political points have arisen in the media.

The first is about social integration. Many people have trouble accepting that someone might seek citizenship of the UK but then wear clothing whose intention is to curtail communication, the first step of integration.

I am sceptical about this point. It is partly a matter of personal disposition. I feel uncomfortable imposing on an individual’s rights where religious customs or traditions are involved.

I am aware that the wearing of the niqab is a source of debate among Muslims themselves.

With some who wear the niqab, it appears to be more of a social custom, at least to go by the various veiled women I’ve encountered on Gulf flights heading to Europe, who whip off the veil the moment they land.

However, it’s not my job as a politician to legislate against hypocrisy or double lives. That would make me as fundamentalist as any religious fanatic.

I also don’t think the argument for integration can be won through laws and regulations. The approach should be flexible, social and cultural.

Indeed, the second point raised in the English debate concerns flexibility. Undoubtedly, there are areas of life where the arguments against the veil outweigh the argument for freedom. Security at airports is an obvious example.

The classroom may be another if educators feel that a good teacher needs to be able to read a pupil’s face.

This is, however, to take a case by case approach with an open mind. As a lawyer I was very amused to see at least two people argue that, in the courtroom, everyone should be obliged to wear the niqab!

There is a serious point being made, albeit mischievously. Juries may think that a witness needs to be judged on appearance but such judgements are often prejudiced.

Few of us are as good as we think we are in sizing people up at a glance but the conclusion often clouds what attention we pay to what people say.

The final point concerns who should take the decision whether to ban or not. I agree with those who argue the decision should be taken as locally as possible.

Because of the delicate issues involved in deciding whether a face veil is the result of coercion or convention-defying freedom, and whether it impedes good order, it should be people as close as possible to the particular situation, institutions and community involved.

It’s a matter of subsidiarity, that cornerstone of European values. It would be deeply ironic if it was abandoned in the name of defending European social integration and culture.

John Attard Montalto is a Labour member of the European Parliament.