WITH reference to issues raised by Dizzy from Sedbury on the wearing of religious identifiers and emblems (Review, February 5).  

I must acknowledge that he makes some valid points.

However it is a question of the degree to which one takes the argument. There are no absolutes.

The Bible and, I am sure, other religious texts, all have references to dress codes and modesty for women, etc.

Not all Jews and Sikhs however are dogmatic about their clothes and religious symbolism.

Many women in predominantly Islamic countries, particularly from the educated and enlightened classes, do not wear veils or full body coverings.

Not all Sikhs wear turbans and not all Jews wear religious robes.

Many send their boys and girls to modern schools, shunning madrassas.

Kemal Ataturk banned the fez and veil in Turkey as he considered them symbols of backwardness and servility of the Turkish people.

Scholars may argue whether social and cultural practices, dress and food codes have any validity under particular religious teachings or simply something imposed by particular societies during particular stages of their evolution.

As an example, it makes sound sense to ban women from driving in Saudi Arabia where they are required to wear full body covering in public; drivers with limited vision would be a hazard to other road users. 

Incidentally there are no restrictions in the Highway Code on women wearing burkhas and full face coverings driving on British roads.

Religious bigotry, class, gender, and other forms of discrimination and Church law prevailed in Britain too until the Enlightenment of recent centuries.

Medieval womenfolk in England wore veils and full body coverings – just look at medieval paintings.

Church Law allowed betrothals and marriage of pre-puberty girls, women were given away in marriage by their fathers and did not have property rights and exclusion of minorities, and other forms of discrimination and exploitation were rife.

It took centuries for these backward practices and social customs to be reformed.

Most of the individual freedoms and legal protection that we enjoy today are the result of struggle by social reformers in late 19th and early 20th centuries, particularly after the two world wars.

Women were to vote and get university degrees only in the 20th century.

Parts of the world continue to practise Dark Ages religious laws and social customs: stoning adulterous women to death or chopping the body parts of thieves, excluding women and minorities from full civic participation and curtailing individual freedoms as we have come to believe in Britain.

Surely Dizzy from Sedbury is not arguing for freedom of those coming to Britain from some of these failed and failing societies to continue their harmful religious or cultural practices: the right to child and forced marriages, multiple wives, instant divorce, female circumcision, excluding girls from schooling, opening up madrassas for boys – all, some would argue, are symbols of their individual religious beliefs and/or culture as, say, wearing full body coverings and veils and to be protected under their human rights.

Is Dizzy suggesting that we have parallel systems of social, marriage, and property laws? What are the consequences to British society and values?

  There are no absolute freedoms except those that have been established by consent of the majority after centuries/decades of struggle.

Some of the alien religious and cultural practices such as FGM, child and cousin marriages, restricting female education, etc, apart from not being legal in Britain also add to the financial burden on our medical and social services.     

The phenomenon Dizzy is supporting is a resurgence of bigotry and self-imposed segregation that appears to be spreading across the globe under the guise of human rights and is a threat to our hard won freedoms in Britain.

Does Dizzy really want all of us to go back to the Middle-Ages?

– Venk Shenoi, Blaisdon.