VENK  Shenoi makes a few assumptions in his recent letter to the Review regarding religious identity.

First of all he assumes that I am  of the male gender. 

Then, because I believe that, in a modern democratic society, there should be freedom of expression, he  assumes that I support  arranged marriages, female genital mutilation and returning to medieval ideals, when nothing could be further from the truth.

Saying that I support people being allowed to wear what they like, so long as it does not offend anyone else, to my mind, does not constitute a return to Tudor times.

I see no difference in a  Catholic nun wearing a habit and a Muslim woman wearing a burka.

Obviously Mr Shenoi does  because he  thinks only the  burka  should be banned.

If the wearing of anything by anyone was thought to be a hazard to safely driving a motor car then of course it should be  subject to the law of the land.

For instance,  I don’t understand why Sikhs are allowed to ride a motorcycle with no crash helmet, when the rest of us have to.

Religious sects and rites are many and varied in this diverse world of ours, and long may it remain so. From the men on a pilgrimage I saw in India, walking along the road completely naked, to the  Christian fundamentalist snake handlers in the American Midwest.

The wearing of a burka seems quite  mundane in comparison.

– Dizzy, Sedbury.