Everyone now has a view on the burqa – British Muslim women are enduring public humiliation

Send your letters in to letters@independent.co.uk

We can't let this man divide us, or convince us that he isn't a threat (Reuters)

Boris Johnson’s comments last week that niqab-wearing Muslim women look like letterboxes and bank robbers was degrading and humiliating. To divert attention from the political row over Johnson’s offensive comments about Muslim women, comedian Rowan Atkinson’s suggestion that Johnson’s comments should be taken as a joke is laughable. In reality, the biggest joke is that Muslim women’s dress code has become the only topic of discussion for almost every individual in society from laypeople and comedians to senior political figures. The latest to jump on the bandwagon? A senior Church of England bishop.

The former Bishop of Rochester Michael Nazir-Ali’s comments relating to the burqa and security concerns are not new. Naturally, security is a global concern, which should be at the forefront of everything else. However, in pursuit of their own political agendas, repeated attempts by some to impose a dress code on how Muslim women should or should not dress is public humiliation. It is sparking a debate which is dividing society in times when unity and peace should be the real concern for everyone.

Navida Sayed

Middlesex

I’m a convert to Islam and, to be honest, although Boris Johnson’s comments were not polite, people should communicate about issues, and I do still think the discussion about the niqab and burqa is important.

As a person of European heritage but also a Muslim, I understand the European anxiety around the niqab. The problem is that non-Muslims associate the niqab with the lack of women’s development and success and blame this on Islam. Muslims in return assume that any critique of their culture or behaviour is a critique of Islam.

The real issue, however, is not Islam. The real issue is why so many of the women from this social group of niqab wearers are illiterate or less educated, why many of them are subject to domestic abuse, why their children do worse at school, and why the health and fitness level of many is also not good. That is the real problem. Instead of having a discussion on how to tackle these issues during integration processes, which were imported from countries of low literacy, high mortality and few women’s rights, we are speaking about women’s clothes. Neither side is talking about these real issues but rather only a piece of symbolic cloth that, even if banned, won’t increase literacy, improve relationships, and psychological and physical fitness.

Ekaterina Angelus

Address supplied

As a practicing Christian, I am appalled by comments from politicians from the left and right who appear to be criticising others for their mode of dress or other signs which would identify their religious or cultural backgrounds. In both the Old and New Testaments, the Bible tells us to “love your neighbour as yourself”. But in Britain, free speech is a right and because the law is based on common law, which is open to interpretation by judges in court “the precepts of any religion cannot sound louder in the general law than the precepts of any other” (Justice Andrew Rutherford, 2011).

Therefore, Boris Johnson is at liberty to say what he thinks about women wearing a niqab or burqa in the same way as anyone is at liberty to say what they think about his crumpled, untidy appearance. What would be very un-British would be the banning of people wearing what they want to wear or saying what they want to say, unless it offends public decency.

It is only by expressing views publicly and fostering debate that we can come to a national consensus as to accepted norms and behaviour. There are many problems in our society – drugs, knife crime, inequality – that need our energy to find a solution that politicians could focus on, yet public debate seems to have been diverted to what a Muslim woman chooses to wear. Or is Boris trying to divert us from a national debate on Brexit? He is, after all, one of the pro-Brexiteers who has caused division in society, which has increased race hate crime including Islamaphobia. Is he trying to appeal to the xenophobic right wing to try to maintain Brexit’s increasingly faltering appeal? What is his objective?

Linda Johnson

East Yorkshire

Boris can’t even get his new ideas right

Boris Johnson is reported in The Daily Telegraph to be suggesting a reduction of stamp duty. He also spoke of a crisis in capitalism. He offers no original ideas that could both assist young people with their housing and retain income to the managers of the UK Commonwealth in the Treasury.

Reducing stamp duty on transacting house purchases must be balanced by extending the remit of stamp duty into all financial transactions. When EU member states debated the introduction of a financial transaction tax it was, I believe, scuppered by a UK veto. Utterly shameful. While the UK’s stamp duty ranges from 0-8 per cent, the proposed financial transaction tax of 0.01-0.1 per cent was rejected, yet it would raise more than stamp duty. Johnson is devoid of constructive ideas but accomplished at egotistical, narcissistic dog-whistling and is a nuisance to UK society.

Robin Le Mare

Cumbria

I’m pinning my hopes on the next generation

Athian Akec’s column gave hope but highlighted the paucity of options open to the nearly half (48 per cent) of those across the UK who voted to remain within the EU and to the younger generation who did not get to vote but who will be most affected by the outcome.

The Tories are playing (and it is just a game to them) to stay in power whatever the national cost. Personal wealth may also be enhanced.

Unfortunately, Jeremy Corbyn has always been anti-EU, although it’s not clear to me why, as the EU has been good for workers’ rights. I assume he fears both freedom of movement and to admit to that fear. I’m puzzled, on that basis, as to why he attracted some element of youth vote.

So, Athian Akec’s generation are stuck between a rock and a hard place. Since Cameron and Osborne did for the Lib Dems and their work was swiftly and selflessly completed by Tim Farron, there is no pro-EU party in the UK. That, to quote the inimitably limited Liz Truss, “is a disgrace”.

I would say to Athian Akec, please, please keep up the pressure on the Brexit “deal”. I would also say, watch the far right. Steve Bannon has no place in our politics yet, though his aims to spread far right views across Europe are frightening. My parents and all the parents of my generation were affected by the war in some way. Let’s not go there again. (If only some of the Brexiteers knew just a little about Winston Churchill, they may understand and embrace his passion for Europe.)

In conclusion, I, and very many of my (senior) generation, pin all our hopes on you and your generation seeking to create and maintain a cooperative Europe. The future, otherwise, is worse than bleak.

I wish you all the luck in the world.

Beryl Wall

London W4

We need a new economic model

Ann Pettifor, in her Monday column, directs our attention towards the benefits of Keynesian economics but raises the spectre of global crisis as a potentially inescapable initiator of change.

The international economic and political milieu is so combustible at present and the personality cult-inclined leaders of so many key player nations so narrowly focused on populist nationalistic agendas that I cannot recall a time when an outbreak of large-scale warfare seemed more plausible. We are not facing specific loci of concern, like Cuban missiles, but rather a global systemic chaos in the face of which conventional lines of thinking seem utterly effete.

While remaining alert to the lessons of history, I wonder whether the time has come to wholly re-evaluate the nature and purpose of economic activity.

Globalised, effectively unregulated, free market capitalism driven by heedless consumerism clearly has limits of many kinds – the chief problem with it being that eventually you run out of ordinary people’s money to give to the rich. New models are urgently needed that address more vital desiderata than the private accumulation of capital.

Steve Ford

Haydon Bridge

America’s import tariffs leave them poorer in every way

“American company fails due to import tariffs”: I read this news story with concern. This sad result of Donald Trump’s unnecessary import tariffs is just the start of even more trouble that the world just doesn’t deserve.

Does anyone “win” when a country, unilaterally, wields such perverse power? It hasn’t worked in my lifetime. America is beset with warmongers especially in the government, and worse still, the strongest, loudest lobbyists are those who wish to inflict suffering upon other weaker people and nations.

Successive American governments have destabilised parts of South America and continue to adversely affect many other areas in the world. I absolutely disagree with the term “leader of the free world” given to the president of the United States. To think that Trump represents me, Britain and Europe fills me horror.

Under Trump’s presidential tenure the world is becoming less likely to heal any of the wounds inflicted by past “errors of judgement”. Implementation of import tariffs, building fences between South and North America and excluding various nationals from the US simply fan the flames of extremism and hatred for all things western. It does not solve problems caused by the US; it simply exacerbates an already delicate world peace.

The more America attempts to control other nations, the more long-lasting damage it does to the stability of the world. Indeed, Trump’s current foreign policies will cause Americans to rue the day he was elected. Import tariffs are already causing trading problems already as much of America’s manufactured goods and materials come from outside the country – China, Taiwan, India, and so on – and if these countries are penalised it will do irreparable damage to future trading practices.

Nothing will be gained from these import tariffs; this is simply another grandstanding gesture to appease the far right extremists of America. It will leave America both financially and morally poorer in the long run.

Keith Poole

Basingstoke

Let’s get some perspective on exam results

Professor Lindsay Paterson tells us that the percentage of the relevant age group passing at least one higher has risen from about a third 10 years ago to “well over 40 per cent now”. He urges caution about being cheered by this because, he suspects, the higher exams have become easier in recent years.

Given the inflation in degree awards in universities in the past couple of decades, it is not hard to believe that the same thing has happened with highers. Many of us will remember a higher maths paper a few years ago having its pass mark lowered to 34 per cent. However, what stands out as particularly worrying is that less than half of those of an age to sit highers are achieving any Higher passes at all. We agonise about young people in schools in poorer areas not meeting university entrance standards in their highers. Should we not be even more worried about the 50 per cent and more who cannot manage to pass even one higher?

Jill Stephenson

Edinburgh