2 days ago
Politicians must not shy away from any public debate on face coverings
SIR – Nigel Farage is quite right to call for a debate on the subject of people covering their faces in public, and brave to consider making it a Reform UK policy. It is clearly part of our culture that people's faces are visible.
This is very important in looking to protect the public against criminals and others who wish to hide themselves behind any form of face covering. There are people who like to believe that it is part of their religion to cover their faces, but all politicians must know this is not a specific religious teaching.
Face covering is unacceptable in our society and any political party knows that policy on the matter risks losing votes from that element of society that demands women cover their faces in public. Politicians need to raise divisive subjects, rather than evade them, and make difficult decisions for the benefit of social cohesion.
Jonathan Longstaff
Buxted, East Sussex
SIR – I fully support Sarah Pochin, the newly elected MP for Runcorn and Helsby, in calling for a ban on the public wearing of the burka (report, June 8). If France, Denmark, Belgium and others are prepared to resist this affront to their way of life, then what is stopping us from doing the same?
Will Forrow
Dawlish, Devon
SIR – Several European countries have banned the wearing of full facial coverings in public, both for security reasons and to tackle a lack of integration into their indigenous populations. We should follow suit.
Peter Rosie
Ringwood, Hampshire
SIR – I would add to Dr Chris Staley's list of unacceptable face coverings (Letters, June 7) the keffiyeh, as worn by militant protesters who seem ashamed to show their faces.
Gordon Cook
Torquay, Devon
SIR – It is a pity that while Kemi Badenoch opposes sharia courts ('Badenoch: Let bosses ban burkas in offices', report, June 8), she has said nothing about their Sikh counterpart.
Sikh courts have no precedent in India. In fact, they are alien to Sikh traditions: even during the Sikh rule in the 18th-century Punjab, there were no exclusive Sikh courts.
Moreover, once you accept Sikh courts, you indirectly accept that Sikhs are fundamentally a different people, and hence deserve special treatment. The creation of these courts has been a great victory for those Sikhs who want to live not as Sikhs of Britain, but Sikhs in Britain.
To create social cohesion and communal harmony, Britain needs a uniform civil code, not separate religious courts. Perhaps that is the reason why the Supreme Court of India has consistently demanded the abolition of such courts.
