This newspaper carried a front page news article (24.10.13) about a verbal assault by a Dutch immigrant on a young female student for wearing a burqa (a full body cover and facial veil) as some Muslim women prefer to do.
For this unprovoked verbal attack the offender was subsequently punished by a fine imposed by a justice of the peace.
This was followed a couple of days later (ODT, 26.10.13) by the reported opinion of two law professors, Rex Ahdar and Andrew Geddis of the University of Otago, that the imposition of a fine was inappropriate: the Dutch woman had only exercised her right to free speech.
Defending the right to free speech is totally appropriate.
The freedom of speech and expression is one of the most precious public goods modern Western society can boast, although it is not absolute.
(There are exceptions such as defamation, libel, slander, incitement to crime and violence - covered by so-called ''hate speech'' laws - and in some European countries there are also laws against denial of the Holocaust, racism, insulting religious communities and the like.)
Western society has struggled for centuries to finally elevate the dictum ascribed to Voltaire - ''I disagree with what you say but I will defend to the hilt your right to say it'' - to one of its highest and most esteemed legal principles.
(The United States has enshrined the sanctity of free speech in the First Amendment.)
The freedom of speech and expression is an incredibly significant principle in shaping democratic process, social intercourse, the media, academic research and teaching and the arts.
The Islamic face-veil of the burqa and niqab style is relatively often the target of verbal abuse and criticism by Westerners who feel uncomfortable about it.
Enforced by the Taliban regime in Afghanistan at the turn of the century, in the West it has now widely become a symbol of unfreedom, gender inequality and female oppression.
Conversely, and wrongly, it is often taken as an expression of extremism and religious fanaticism.
However, apart from its symbolic value, if freely chosen, it expresses also someone's right to dress in this way in a ''free society''.
In New Zealand, a member of Parliament made news by decrying the burqa and pronouncing he would ban it if he had a say in this matter (and subsequently apologised for his Islamophobic remark), bus drivers suffering from the newly detected neurosis of ''maskophobia'' denied veiled Muslim women access to public transport in Auckland and Wellington, at some point the police expressed reservations about drivers veiling in this manner, and other incidents.
France and Belgium have banned this sartorial style, as have several European local authorities, and some professions which have to deal with the general public are prohibited from wearing it.
In many cases the courts of law have been busied to sort freedom of dress from unacceptable restrictions in sartorial choice and religious freedom.
In New Zealand, the right to wear the face-veil may be protected under the Bill of Rights Act 1990 as an expression of religious and cultural freedom.
The Act protects not only religious belief but also its exercise and expression in public.
This became an issue in a district court case in Auckland in 2004 when two female witnesses (of Afghan origin) refused to unveil in public.
Eventually a compromise was found in hiding the unveiled women behind a screen shielding them from the general public but remaining visible to lawyers, judge and court staff.
The judge had sought expert opinion on whether wearing a burqa was an Islamic requirement, but there is no unanimity among Muslim religious scholars.
Most Muslim women see a simple headscarf hijab as a religious requirement, and only a minority would consider a full facial veil as religiously mandated.
It depends on a particular exegesis of the sacred Islamic scriptures (the Qur'an and the Sunna, the traditions).
Although officially bicultural and without a written constitution, New Zealand is practically multicultural.
The reality of the country's ethnic, cultural and religious diversity demands a response of sensible pluralism and public tolerance.
There is of course the question: Can and should a truly free society protect everybody against verbal assault by curtailing people's right to criticise?
On the other hand, should the right to offend override the right not to have one's most sacred beliefs offended?
And quite apart from the fact that nationally enforced and legally required assimilation is forbidden by human rights provisions, would we really want to elevate the maxim ''When in Rome do as the Romans do'' to a supreme requirement for living in this country and lift it above the personal freedom of expressing one's identity in various ways, so long as it does not hurt someone else or infringe on other people's rights?
The fact is we do not expect that everybody we encounter act, believe, dress, and speak exactly the same as so-called mainstream society does.
Many modern states recognise this by enfranchising people of radically different cultural background from the majority and by offering culturally differentiated forms of citizenship.
The philosopher John Rawls recommends in such matters of seemingly unresolvable clashes of important principles to commit to ''public reason'', a kind of utilitarian reason independent of deep religious and metaphysical values, to achieve sensible, rational and practical compromises based on simple civility and common sense.
The globalised world in the 21st century, with many different cultures struggling to coexist peacefully, quite obviously and urgently needs a new code of courtesy and tolerance.
• Dr Kolig is an Honorary Fellow in Religion, Otago University, a retired social anthropologist, and author of New Zealand's Muslims and Multiculturalism, and Conservative Islam.
[Editor's note: The term burqa was published in the original court report because that was the word used in court by the police prosecutor, defendant and witnesses. While the victim was wearing a niqab (which covers just the face, rather than the whole body), she accepted the use of the word burqa when giving evidence in court.]
