To the lady who asked if she would be allowed to wear a mini skirt in a Saudi court, your question shows so much sarcasim in it so here is your answer.
By all means wear the mini skirt to where ever you want but first look into your religion in depth and you will find if you were to follow it correctly, you shouldn't be wearing the mini skirt anywhere in public. Oh and it's called a vail just incase you wanted to update your vocab.

Anita, sydney, australia

I am a muslim, and live in a western country of what i call my home. Although i do not wear the hijab I respect and take my hat off to all the women who do,as it is extremely hard these days to wear it in public with the stereotype muslims are given. Unfortunately we have come to a stage where freedom to speak and dress as we please has been limited.
It is truly sad that no matter how much we the honest muslims of which are not terrorists are being targeted on almost the most pathetic excuses such as the ones i have read regarding of what muslim women should and should not wear, seriously what next !!!!! what happened to DEMOCRACY or is only when it best suits you.

Anita, sydney, australia

I was of the opinion that it did matter to me and then I thought again.If dress makes a difference then we are all guilty of judging in appropriately.
As to masks, we wear them everyday as we behave differently in each situation.If I meet the Queen I will be expected to behave in a manner suited to her dictated by someome else. For myself, I would treat her the same as a prisoner or a begger. But that is my thinking.
Very few of us feel free to be our true selves on this planet because of all the old patriarchial rules for here and there and everywhere.
Even Judges do this regularly as I know well. Buddhist monks in the view of one western judge are Barbarians, so he made an order for the children in a family not to be allowed near him. But it was also an order from this same judge to grant contact to a violent person thus causing fear and distress to children.
I rest my case.

Catherine Sara, London, UK

Would Homa Wilson be happy with defendants, witnesses et al giving their evidence by telephone, as we are so expert in non face to face communication, or, as we have to go to court, should our faces not be visible to all?

David Leslie, Perth, Scotland

With the greatest respect to the muslim community, I strongly oppose the wearing of any mask or more precisely
the veil in our courts of law . I do not believe that our judicial system should uphold such practice. Certainly, my views regarding the prohibition of veils is not limited solely the courts of law.

While I bear in mind the debatable religious arguments, one has to take into consideration that we are living in era where terror reigns. To allow anyone to parade anonymously could have serious implications. This could easily be flaunted by persons of criminal and evil intent. Common sense must prevail. The security of a nation must be prioritized.

Radcliffe Green, north london, england

Would you a man with a dense beard from appearing in court ? Would you ask him that he must shave first ? Then why do we need to bann a women from wearing veil ? Most women who wear a veil are vunerable, and already face hurdles getting employment, finding friends. Major wittness's to crime will not come forward because in court they would not be able to wear theircultural attire. As has been said female court officials could confirm the identity of a person within the court setting.

krishna , leeds, UK

As a juror I would consider myself obliged to view with extreme scepticism the testimony of any witness whose face I could not see. A barrister who obscured his or her expression in this way would find it even harder to convince me.

edward green, Upminster, England

This situation is not unique.

In Sri Lanka two Buddhist monks who qualified as lawyers were refused their enrollment oaths at the Supreme Courts on the ground that their saffron robes were ''inappropriate'' court attire. The Court rules require that anybody taking oath as an attorney must be clad either in the national dress or Western suit. The robes of a Buddhist monk are not permitted.

Sri Lanka is a democratic country and Buddhism is the main religion. Buddhist monks wearing saffron robes work as teachers, Aurvedic medical practioners etc. Buddist monks are politically very active and there are many who work as elective representatives in local councils and parliament.

Although veile is not necessarily a religious dress code as buddhist saffron robe, there are many lessons to be learnt from this experience.

E L Chandrakantha, Northampton, United Kingdom

would the judge allow a non muslim woman the right to wear a mask in court
. we would not be allowed to wear a mini skirt ect, in saudi courts .
its about time the british stopped kowtowing to the muslims

marie murphy, wirral, england

The veil should be banned everywhere in public. It is simply a tool of segregation which has no place in a modern society. If people want to wear the veil to separtate themselves from the society they live in, they shouldn't be living here.

Eleanor, London, England

I am glad that the question of being able to hear has been raised. Deaf and hard of hearing people must be able to see lips in order to hear. Anything that covers the mouth such as a beard, a veil or scarf, hand covering the lips or stting in a dark area can all make it difficult and sometimes impossible for those with a hearing disability. It is said that the full veil is a matter of choice but unfortunately people do not choose to be deaf or hard of hearing. They can learn to lip read though.
This need to see lips is important at any time not just in a Court.

Ann Spokes Symonds, Oxford, England,

I am an English non Muslim lady living in a Muslim country - we never have such debates here or in any location in the Middle East. In all places of education and workplaces (including courts and hospitals) face veils are NOT allowed. No one creates a fuss, the ladies accept this ruling and get on with it. Why do the Muslims who choose to live in predominantly Christian countries continue making a fuss about everything possible and in turn create the wrong image about Muslims and Islam? Wearing a face veil (we call it a burqa) is NOT a religious requirement and is not mentioned any where in the Holy Quran.
Please stop pandering stop these people and their ridiculous demands.

Rose, Muscat, Sultanate of Oman

Communication is more difficult than is often imagined if the face is not visible.

Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK

There must be a blanket ban on the veil,not just in court.What a shame that a land that counts itself among the developed nations of the world must invite a debate on an issue that smacks of a Taliban mindset.If the veil can be worn in court,why not extend the facility to include shopping centres,cinema,post offices,malls,in short any and every conceivable place frequented by humans to the wearer? And where will it lead? A terrorist in a full face veil blowing up a post office and making a qiuick getaway using the anonymity and protection so conveniently offered by the veil.
Enough of this nonsense.

vishwanathan, Secunderabad, India

The demand to wear the veil is couched in terms of a claim to religious freedom, althogh whether that is the true reason is difficult to judge. The schoolteacher who demanded the right to wear a full veil in class managed to survive her interview without one. How come she can talk to adults withot a veil but not to children?

Those demanding religious freedom should remember that this is a two way street. Where is the religious freedom in countries such as Saudi Arabia where Christian churches are not allowed?

If Muslims feel that the current reaction to the wearing of the veil prevents them being treated as full members of western society why can they not conform the the customs of that society, as they demand westerners do in Muslim countries. Woe betide any western woman who appears with bare arms in Saudi.

Warren Hertzberg, London,

Can a burglar or bank robber appear in a court wearing a mask; surely in a court of law the aim is to ascertain the truth of the matter in hand.
A person may give many signs unknowingly of a deception and the wearing of a mask makes these deceptions easier to achieve therefore common sense dictates that a mask must never be allowed.
The saying "now look me in the eyes and say that" is not accidental it is a fact known for hundreds of years to mask the truth.

Louis Cannell, Northampton, UK

I currently reside in Dubai where the sight of women in full veil, including face cover, is both common and accepted. One has to say that also common is the sight of western dress and custom, which, as in England some time ago, is encouraged to be conservative where possible and tasteful. An art which, whenever I visit the UK, seems to have been forgotten.

In the current climate of distrust between societies and religions I feel that juries will be overtly prejudicial towards the sight of a Muslim woman wearing full Hijab and face covering as a suspect. I also believe that with a jury of Muslim men, a woman without said covering would also be treating suspiciously.

It is an unfortunate sign of the times that through no fault of our own, such prejudices do not allow the due process to continue without bias one way or the other. My view is that dress has always affected a jury's perception of the accused in much the same way that looks do. This is unavoidable and if the suspect and their lawyer decide that the best way to be dressed is to reflect the individual's belief then so be it.

Stuart, Dubai, UAE

Many years ago it was recognised that not only must justice be done but it must be seen to be done. Surely, that includes being able to see the faces of those who sit in judgment.

Peter Hargreaves, Stockport, Cheshire

Dress codes have long been part of the legal profession in England & Wales. In this regard the intended impact of dress codes has varied from conveying importance through flamboyant judges’ robes to the shame of appearing in a convict’s apparel.

Accordingly, this topic can viewed from the perspective of the actor wearing the veil during a court trial, the role of that actor and possible prejudicial effects that wearing a veil can have in carrying out that role.

A consideration of the roles carried out by a solicitor, a witness or a defendant has interesting possible prejudicial effects when considering the impact of the veil. The question then is can the prejudice created by the wearing of a veil have enough an impact to influence the outcome of a trial in a negative way. Rightly or wrongly, the answer must be yes, in the current political climate. If the answer is yes then the act of wearing a veil by a solicitor must be considered from what is in the best interest of the client, especially if the courts/solicitor are aware of such risks. The veiled witness or defendant does not have a duty to act in the best interest of the client, the risk of prejudice impacts on their role and their role alone.

It is my view that all three actors mentioned should have the right to wear what they consider to be right in accordance with their religious beliefs in so far as we are trying to change misguided societal views BUT the risk of prejudice to the client must be protected against. This is the challenge of the judicial system in these times of change.

D Akande, London, UK

Some argue that it is important to see a full face of those in court, and in particular, the faces of witnesses. However, there are many court cases in which the witness will give evidence behind a screen for various reasons. While it is true that they are seen by the jury and the judge, the presence of the screen can be argued as having little or no effect.

Similarly, providing that a female court usher or another official can verify the witness as being the person who is to be called, there is little differerence between the presence of the screen and the presence of the veil.

In relation to problems of communication, I find myself agreeing with Homa Wilson in saying that "when we speak over the phone or communicate via the internet we can’t rely on a person’s body language or facial expressions. Yet we don’t have a problem in understanding what is being communicated" Furthermore, the niqab does not appear to cling to the face in any way, but if muffling does occur, then there could perhaps be the introduction of some sort of small microphone that could be attached by a female court official before an oath is taken/promise is made and the giving of evidence begins, as sugessted by Dawn Dixon

I myself am a Christian, but even so, I understand that each religion has its own set of beliefs. Given that a Sikh man does not have to remove his turban and a Jewish man can continue to wear a yarmulke...why can't a muslim woman wear a veil?

Rochelle Devonish, Student, London,

I find it suprising that we have so much debate about the veil yet so few people know why it is actually worn. Many muslim countries have banned it. A majority of muslims do not wear it practising or not. Some muslims believe it is anti-islamic as it is actually not mentioned int he Quran in fact any face covering is banned in Mecca the holiest place for muslims because the Quran expressly forbids it. The veil is worn so men are not attracted to women as a form of Purdah to protect your modesty. The minority who believe in women's purdah also believe women should not function in public life as a result all this debate is ridiculous. If it is the believe of certain muslims that women once reaching puberty need to cover all their bodies except their eyes due to the need to practice purdah then they certainly should not be out in public working, shopping or socialising. Countries that enforce purdah for women state clearly that women are not allowed out without written permission from a male guardian and a male escort who has to be related by blood and has to prove it if stopped by the religious police. As a muslim I find this hypocrisy mind blowing.

shena, Bradford, United Kingdom

Some argue that it is important to see a full face of those in court, and in particular, the faces of witnesses. However, there are many court cases in which the witness will give evidence behind a screen for various reasons. While it is true that they are seen by the jury and the judge, the presence of the screen can be argued as having little or no effect.

Similarly, providing that a female court usher or another official can verify the witness as being the person who is to be called, there is little differerence between the presence of the screen and the presence of the veil.

In relation to problems of communication, I find myself agreeing with Homa Wilson in saying that "when we speak over the phone or communicate via the internet we can’t rely on a person’s body language or facial expressions. Yet we don’t have a problem in understanding what is being communicated" Furthermore, the niqab does not appear to cling to the face in any way, but if muffling does occur, then there could perhaps be the introduction of some sort of small microphone that could be attached by a female court official before an oath is taken/promise is made and the giving of evidence begins, as sugessted by Dawn Dixon

I myself am a Christian, but even so, I understand that each religion has its own set of beliefs. Given that a Sikh man does not have to remove his turban and a Jewish man can continue to wear a yarmulke...why can't a muslim woman wear a veil?

Rochelle Devonish, Student, London,

In that case , Is it fair for someone to wear a balaclava in court???

Dave Madley, Alicante, Spain

I cannot see what is the problem? Muslim women who want to wear the veil can just stay at home.

Vinay Mehra, Purley, Surrey, U.K.

It is most important to see the face in making necessary judgments.

Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK

We as usual are missing the entire point here. In this country it is expected that those on trial should be able to see their accusers and the jury have a right to read the expressions of witnesses to help gauge the reliability. The veil is not religious so is not protected in law, even Muslim countries do not agree on the niqab. We should not be arbitrarily changing the laws of the UK unless there are no significant problems caused by the change. As has already happened the identity of the witness cannot be confirmed; even if this were resolved there will still be cases of miscarriages of justice due to mishearing of evidence by the jury and/or negative perceptions of this. The laws of this country are for all and in the event that you disagree strongly with them you can always move to a country where the laws you wish are respected. If I move to Iran I would fully expect to conform to their laws and not ask them to be changes because I do not like them. Let us keep this country tolerant of differences.

Joseph Kellie, Edi, Scotland

If they are happy to accept our way of life, equality, standard of living, schools, the mosques we build, and benefits we provide they should also adopt some of our culture. Most of all in our communities and especially in our courts of law. And better still if they adopted or laws they wouldn't be in court in the first place. Regarding legal personnel I would hope they would have the courtesy to respect our way of life and drop the veil.

Gary Eagle, petrerborough, uk

Dress codes have long been part of the legal profession in England & Wales. In this regard the intended impact of dress codes has varied from conveying importance through flamboyant judges’ robes to the shame of appearing in a convict’s apparel.

Accordingly, this topic can viewed from the perspective of the actor wearing the veil during a court trial, the role of that actor and possible prejudicial effects that wearing a veil can have in carrying out that role.

A consideration of the roles carried out by a solicitor, a witness or a defendant has interesting possible prejudicial effects when considering the impact of the veil. The question then is can the prejudice created by the wearing of a veil have enough an impact to influence the outcome of a trial in a negative way. Rightly or wrongly, the answer must be yes, in the current political climate. If the answer is yes then the act of wearing a veil by a solicitor must be considered from what is in the best interest of the client, especially if the courts/solicitor are aware of such risks. The veiled witness or defendant does not have a duty to act in the best interest of the client, the risk of prejudice impacts on their role and their role alone.

It is my view that all three actors mentioned should have the right to wear what they consider to be right in accordance with their religious beliefs in so far as we are trying to change misguided societal views BUT the risk of prejudice to the client must be protected against. This is the challenge of the judicial system in these times of change.

D Akande, London, UK

It is simply rude to refuse to acknowledge the norms of this country - covering one's face is a sign of disrespect to those around you, and, clearly, makes any sane communication virtually impossible, especially in for example, schools, hospitals and courts. Anyone who cannot conform to existing accepted Western values and norms should live somewhere else where customs suit them.

Paul Butler, Reading, England

The important thing is flexibility and evenhandedness.

If one person is allowed to wear a veil in Court, then everyone should be encouraged to wear one, including men as well as women, and non-moslems as well as moslems. In that way everyone is treated equally, and those wearing veils do not have an unfair advantage.

Eric Brightwell, Burnham, England

More and more the UK seems to have to face the difficulty that is Islam: attacks, planned attacks, murderous rhetoric, general violence, etc. This veil issue only represents the much worsening problem. Why the uproar over a veil? Isn’t everyone aware that in Islamic schools, even in London, Muslim children are being taught to hate Jews and Christians? The same is true throughout the Muslim world. The non-Muslim world can attempt to handle the troubling issues brought through the ideals of hate and murder one at a time if it so chooses; however, this will be to no avail if the real issue, the source of all of this, is not dealt with head-on as needed rather than winked at and denied for being what it is_as has been the practice thus far.

Steven Jones, Dallas, TX

I wonder who or what led to issues such as this being discussed in a country that claims to adopt a very liberal attitude and take a sensible stance on matters of this kind.
Wearing the veil in court or elsewhere does little to inspire confidence in the wearer.It causes feelings of revulsion and stark disbelief-revulsion because of a morbid obsession with feudal practices by the wearer and disbelief that a progressive country can contemplate an idea synonymous with the Taliban. Any advocate of the veil who attributes the act to religious freedom must uderstand that it deeply offends human sensibilities. And that is reason enogh for the ban.If for some reason (that eludes common sense) the wearer is adamant on donning the full veil , she is free to leave Britain and choose to carry out the barbaric practice in other parts of the globe- Arabia,Iran ,Afghanistan etc- and there are plenty of such countries.Let not Britain be the stamping ground for such ill conceived ideas and misfits.

Vishwanathan, secunderabad, India

Abidah, there is much discourse about the 'need' to wear a full veil. Nobody has shown a quote from the Koran to show that it must be worn, and most Muslims disagree witht the assertion that it should be worn. I am not sure why Hindus and Jews should be brought into this. Their religious dress consists of headware, which in no way hides the identity of the wearer. I've no doubt that you would feel threatened if I came up to you in the street wearing a full mask, with just a slit for my eyes. Many westerners feel the same way.

David Leslie, Perth, Scotland

Full face veil suggestion is so outlandish that people wonder how it was made in first place. The veil stops women from achieving their full potential and restrict them from communicating also sends very clear message that she does not want to be part of the society. People go to court to seek justice and judge evaluates the evidence on the basis of several factors which includes the demeanor of the witness. When people migrate to other countries they are expected to observe the custom and practice of that country regardless of what they feel about it..The women is free to use veil in her personal life but when it comes to inter-acting with police, judiciary and other public functionaries, use of veil must not be allowed. For puritans who make this an issue, the best thing would be to return to the country from where they came and follow whatever custom and practices they believe in that country.

M.M.GURBAXANI, Bangalore, India

There is too much discussion and too many long winded speeches being made regarding the wearing of a veil in court.
The few Muslim women who insist on their"rights" are not necessarily doing this on religious grounds but are activists making it an issue just to make a point.
The simple answer is, they live in England and abide by English law which takes precedence over religious beliefs.
They should NOT be allowed to wear the veil in court.

Harry Kennard, Peasmarsh, UK/East Sussex

Since the vast majority of communication between and among individuals stems from such non-verbals as facial expression, eye movement, the tightening of facial muscles, and overall body language, anything that impedes this form of communication is detrimental to court room equity. No one should be able to mask the face when testifying or presenting in a court of law. The mere fact that the question of the veil is discussed demonstrates the extreme legths to which western societies have gone to accommodate Muslims and others. Would any Muslim reader comment if s/he believes that Muslim societies should accommodate westerner religious needs, including allowing full, uninhibited, and open worship of Christians and others in Mecca and elsewhere in Saudie Arabia. Anyone care to respond? Are "understanding" and multi-culturalism just a one-way street? Muslims, should you not vigorously speak out for full, unfetterd religious (and secular) freedom throughout Saudi Arabia? Answer?

James, Jacksonville, Illinois U. S.

The culture in this country considered covering one's face in the company of others to be bad manners. I remember as a child being told to take my hand away from my face when I was talking to someone. So I, with many others I know, find it offensive when people go around with their faces covered. They obviously don't want to integrate and adopt the norms of the host society, so they shouldn't complain if they experience criticism.

Another aspect of our culture is that when we go to another country most of us try to adopt the customs of our hosts. It is only being polite to do so (Good manners used to be a characteristic of being British). Why should a religious belief be able to overide everything else in a society and expect special treatment? Abuse of tolerance can start to lead to intolerance.

D. Mitchell, Montrose, Scotland

It is a religious requirement according to tradition for ladies to wear the full veil. As Sikhs are allowed to wear their religious apparel without question as are Jews, why the discrimination toward Muslims? I can clearly hear people talking when they wear a veil so have no problem with it at all. Telling a Muslim lady to remove her veil is like telling her to be naked in front of strangers. It is an abuse.

Abidah, Bournemouth,

If I were to be a juror in a case where a witness was wearing a veil I would ask that either, the witness be required to remove the veil,or, that I be excused from jury service on the grounds that I could not judged the truthfullness or otherwise of the witness without seeing her face.

Mike Crowe, cullompton, Devon

Would I - as a white, UK-born non-Muslim - be permitted to wear a full-face veil in court?

BP, Somerset, UK

We are talking about the full veil here. Anything short of that is in my opinion acceptable. It is decent and gives a sense of dignity to the court room. The full veil is of course unacceptable and ridiculous in a court room where the trial process is going on. Let's be sensible about this. Wear the full veil in suitable places. In life, we need to be balanced in all ways. It just calls for common sense. The problem is we don't use it.

Anjana Dutt, Nottingham, United Kingdom

I have had the opportunity of working in a number of muslim countries. In offices there, women wore a hijab but never a veil. How come that muslim women in U.K. have to show that they are holier than anyone else. As far as I am aware, it is not even a religious requirement but is simply a cultural thing.

Vinay Mehra, Purley, Surrey

I feel that wearing the veil is a right that cannot be taken away from those that choose to wear it. Religous freedom is a part of this country and every person has the right to wear what ever they choose whether it be the veil or just the hijab.

I disagree with the fact that credability will be lost due to the reduced non-verbal communication, especially when verdicts should be based upon fact and not reaction.

Finally I feel that this issue is typical of the current climate where muslims are under the microscope and every belief is being questioned. Instead of making muslims a part of society, issues such as this is moving us further and alienating us from society as a whole.

Faiz Ahmed Patel, London, UK

I was under the impression that an accused person has the right (except under certain circumstances) to see their acuser in court. The veil will prevent this. The wearing of a full veil makes many non-Muslims very uncomfortable. Why, therefore, should the rights of a small minority (who many will claim have no obligation to wear a full veil anyway) to hide their identity, override those of the vast majority who like to see who they are talking to in face to face (or face to veil) contact?

David Leslie, Perth, Scotland

It might clarify the debate if we stop using the euphemism "veil" and instead call the opaque face-covering used by some Muslim women a "mask", for that is what it is. A veil is a partial, non-opaque face-covering which is worn (in Western cultures) only in certain social circumstances. A head-covering, on the other hand, is not a veil at all.

There is considerable debate within Islam about whether the face-mask is required for Muslim women, but in practice it can be seen to be a cultural phenomenon. It is popular only in the Gulf countries, Pakistan and Afghanistan - and the style, completeness and usage vary according to local custom - whereas there are significant Muslim cultures, such as in Indonesia and Malaysia, where the face-mask is very rarely seen, although the head-covering is almost universal.

In Western cultures, face-masks are associated with criminality and danger. For example, a motorcycle helmet with visor masks the face, so wearers are asked to remove their helmets, to show their bona fides, when entering premises such as banks. Masks are sometimes used by revellers (the "masked ball") where the association is with secrecy and a certain, perhaps enjoyable, sense of danger. A partial mask, in the form of dask gIasses (often artificially large) is used by individuals who want to appear aggressive, such as bodyguards. it is unsurprising, therefore, that wearers of face-masks are regarede with some reserve in Western societies.

How shoud we treat mask-wearers in court? They fall into various categories. Visitors, or recent immigrants, from cultures where the mask is normal should be treated respectfully and permitted to wear their masks after verification of their identity by a female official in an enclosed space (a process which is routine in those cultures, as can be seen in any airport in the Gulf).
Juveniles who try to adopt the mask under the guise of religion, but in reality for reasons of fashion or rebellion, should be treated robustly, just as they are in similar circumstances where religion is not involved. Schools have dress codes for good reasons.

Then there are the (apparently) mature women who wish to express their rejection of the Western society that they choose to live in, by using masks which are designed to segregate the wearers from society in general. These ladies present a more difficult question. If I, as a non-Muslim male, come into court wearing a face-mask, I will be asked unequivocally to remove it; any assertion that it is my personal religious choice will be ignored, if not ridiculed. Should the courts then discriminate in favour of women who use religion as a reason for masking themselves? Courts may submit to these demands for the sake of a quiet life and to avoid political controversy, but they should be aware that there is a danger of creating a precedent for more extreme demands.
Masked ladies should treated respectfully - as should everyone - and should be allowed to keep their masks, again after identification. However, they should not be allowed to use religious excuses to distort the processes of the courts, which in this country should be seen to be the same for everyone, regardless of religion.

John Stanning, Winchester, Hampshire

Homa Wilson and, to a lesser extent Dawn Dixon are disengenous in claiming the only issues in court are those of identification or of "understanding what is communicated".

They must surely know the importance, for a jury, of body language in guageing honesty. It may not be foolproof, but it is the only check we have on how comfortable people are with what they say.

Homa's claim is no more credible than the young teacher whose pupils "had no dificulty in hearing what I was saying" but who had nothing to say about their UNDERSTANDING of the same.

It does not benefit Islam, or any belief, no good wilfully to ignore the commonsense objections of well-intentioned people, in an attempt to justify the evidently unjustifiable.

Michael Kemp, Lewisham / London, England

I am offended and appalled by the wearing of any face covering or veil andI think they should be banned in ALL puplic places. Full stop. NO exceptions.
NO-ONE should be allowed to wear such a veil in any place outside their own home or a place of religious worship.
The same applies to ludicrous situations such as the recent Met policeworman who has her own 'uniform' designed for her . EITHER she wears a standard WPC uniform AND agrees to undertake ALL the duties of a police officer OR she is unfit for the job and shouldbe dismissed - as should those who interviewed/employed her.

Ian White, Shrewsbury, England

It is not enough, and somewhat patronising, for Homa Wilson to suggest that education is all that is required for the wearing of the veil to be accepted as simply a cultural variant to be tolerated in court.

Communication by internet and telephone, while useful and somtimes the only option, is undeniably inferior to face to face communication in important matters where empathy and judgement are involved and why should the court be hampered in such a way?

More fundamentally I would wonder about a deity which thought it right to hide such a marvellous creation, but perhaps even more if dealing with an intelligent and educated lawyer I would wonder and worry about the personality behind a full veil .

David Bowker, Stockport, UK

I do not think that the wearing of the niqab need be debated on religious or professional or even gender equality grounds. The problem for me is the one of a security threat. In this regard, I am amazed that there is even a debate on whether the full veil should be worn in any place when a person's identity needs to be assured. I would include most public places and schools, colleges, and hospitals in particular and certainly law courts, as such places. If someone is allowed to hide her identity whilst amongst others, she can rightly be assumed to be a potential threat to their security. The naqib performs the same job as a balaclava, mask or motorcycle helmet and these headgears are certainly used to conceal identity as much as the full veil does. Most of Britain's identity passes require the matching of one's face to a full face photo ID. i.e.showing one's face is identifying oneself. Concealing it can put others at risk. If a woman's belief's are so important to her that she must still wear the niqab, then she has the right to choose to put them first and to not go to places where she must reveal her face. However, she should not have the right to refuse to identify herself, when the security of others' is at risk.

Helen Goddard, WORTHING, WEST SUSSEX

I would prefer to see the actual guidance rather than to read "opinions." Please publish the guidance in full as and when it is issued.

Peter Hargreaves, Stockport, Cheshire

Yet an other fudge from the cowardly liberal nutters,where there is conflict about religeon or cultural issues the British Law must take precedence,if they want to wear a veils pehaps they could practice law in a muslim counrty,the insistence on wearing a veil had nothing to do with their religion, its the middle finger up to the British Law and way of life

David Gray, Isleworth, Middlesex

It is not enough, and somewhat patronising, for Homa Wilson to suggest that education is all that is required for the wearing of the veil to be accepted as simply a cultural variant to be tolerated in court.

Communication by internet and telephone, while useful and somtimes the only option, is undeniably inferior to face to face communication in important matters where empathy and judgement are involved and why should the court be hampered in such a way?

More fundamentally I would wonder about a deity which thought it right to hide such a marvellous creation, but perhaps even more if dealing with an intelligent and educated lawyer I would wonder and worry about the personality behind a full veil .

David Bowker, Stockport, UK