Sir, The debate over the Muslim veil (reports, Oct 7) has raised many questions, but perhaps we can all agree on one fact. The human face and that of some animals is undoubtedly a highly complex system that aids the communication of feelings and emotion. The ongoing controversy has stimulated me to reread Darwin’s The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals, first published in 1872.

Who can doubt that the mobile face, richly endowed with muscles and nerves, has evolved in part to enhance human intercourse at many levels and to strengthen the solidarity of the social group? If the wearing of the veil is to be justified on cultural, religious or political grounds, the countervailing human and social cost should be honestly acknowledged.

GEOFF SIMONS
Stockport, Cheshire

Sir, Muslim women are not the only sector of our society that wishes to wear impractical garb to demonstrate that they unquestioningly adhere to something. Chavs do, goths do, punks do and an awful lot of football supporters do.

ROGER MARSH
Morecambe

Sir, If the veil demonstrates that the wearer is modest, then those women who don’t wear the veil will be seen as immodest or sluttish in the eyes of the Muslim community. This is a very aggressive attitude, which denigrates non-Muslim women.

IAN LESLIE
Whitstable, Kent

Sir, To call Jack Straw’s request an attack on Islam is extremely unreasonable. In the grand mosque of Mecca, the holiest of places in Islam, women are not allowed to cover their faces and are required to have their faces and hands exposed. This is the interpretation of hijab adopted widely by Muslim scholars. Some may interpret it differently and they have a right to do so.

AJAZ HAQUE
Toronto

Sir, The veil is seen in the West as a method of oppressing women and a backward tradition honoured for tradition’s sake.

For many years Muslims in the West have tried to explain its purpose, to promote chastity and modesty, and convey its central position at the heart of the Islamic faith. Western Muslims, and especially female converts to Islam, have explained the veil and described it as “liberating”, but this appears to have fallen on deaf ears.

ARIF KHAN
New Malden, Surrey

Sir, It may well be inappropriate for Parliament to legislate on the wearing of Islamic women’s garb (leading article, Oct 7) but it is surely only a matter of time before the issue comes before the courts.

Indeed, the right to wear the jilbab at school was tested by the highest court in the land. The right of employers to lay down a dress code for staff or to require them to wear a uniform appears to be universally accepted, the Sikh turban being a lone exception. In the Netherlands, a court ruled that child carers might not cover their faces since children relied on “reading” facial expressions. The same concept could be extended to all of the caring professions.

ANSELM KUHN
Stevenage, Herts

Sir, The reactions of the face may be a crucial factor in judging the reliability or otherwise of witnesses in the courtroom. How should a witness’s refusal to remove a veil be treated when the legitimate ends of justice are at stake?

MICHAEL SHERRARD, QC
Recorder of the Crown Court, 1974-94
London NW3

Explore Letters

• Feedback