in view of recent publicity regarding wearing of the Burhka in non Muslim countries, what r your thoughts.?

a sign that the wearer does not want to integrate into european society

with such an attitude wouldn't they feel happier in a muslim country?

I think these should be banned. I am more concern for security and practical purposes rather than that social and religious bullcrap.

These Burhka hinders identification. Some criminals may disguise as innocent women wearing burhkas. They forbid helmets or hoods when going inside but they allow burhkas?

To those "freedom to wear anything" losers. I might as well wear a SS uniform with a matching Swastika armband, eh? You guys are hypocrites!

The wearing of the Burkha is much less of a religious symbol than the Cross is to Christians. Yet those Christians who do regard the Cross as symbolic are banned from wearing it by the PC forces in charge of this country. As are Nativity plays and Christian festivals. Remember Hot Cross Buns being banned in some schools in case it offended Muslims?

What sickens me is that these policies are meant to be divisive, there is no other explanation. We know that moderate Muslims oppose the Burkha as we do and we know that many of them are here because they have fled their own harsh regime.

Unfortunately, we also know that our hand wringing attitude to the extremists only serves to make the so called host nation more resentful and fearful ot the future of this country

The main difference is that the UK whilst largely secular, is still not a Muslim country.

This is a 'christian country' - fit in with our way of life or don't bother comming here in the 1st place.

All the wearing of 'burhka' style dress means is that the person is still being 'oppressed' by the husband who 'insists' she wears it.

This is England not some 'despot' country - all though - maybe we are getting close to that now.

Let's not mince words. The reason why they wear it is because they believe that those who don't are behaving like prostitutes. Beneath their benighted tented gowns, that's what they think you women who don;t follow them are - whores. That's why it is so objectionable. It's different from someone wearing something outlandish because they are wanting to be different or following some fad. One would not wish to tell people what to wear as long as they are not directly judging and condemning those who don't follow them. But when something is done for religious reasons and failure to comply incurs a value-judgment that casts a slur on the morality of non-conformity, then it becomes not just a matter of freedom of choice. It becomes a social and political issue. It becomes a battle of ideology. This is something Obama has failed to understand, despite his legal training.

There's no place for them in a western society. I'm really interested in what sort of work these women do that wear them because they must breach Health & Safety rules left, right and centre. Also wearing them in a society where women have the choice not to wear them is condoning the wearing of them in places where women have no choice but to wear them.

I am all for people wearing whatever they want and don't have a problem with burhkas. I think it is that people feel vulnerable to terrorism from extremists and it is so easy for a man (presuming the terrorist is a man) to hide behind one of these. The same can be said for hoodies. Youths hide behind them when they want to commit a crime but that doesn't mean to say that everyone who has a hoodie will commit a crime. Other than that I cannot see any other reason why a government would want to ban the burhka

The answer to growing tyranny is not less freedom for individuals but rather a getting back to the basics of democracy which include real freedom of speech and the right to bear arms.

"After the failure of the last Jacobite rising in 1746, the kilt and tartan were banned in an attempt to stamp out the culture which was seen by the Hanovarian government as the power base of the House of Stuart. The ban, imposed by an Act of Parliament of 1746, was called the Disarming Act or ‘An Act for the more effectual disarming of the Highlands in Scotland and for more effectual securing of peace of the said Highlands; and for restraining the Use of the Highland Dress’ (19 Geo. II c.39, in Johnston & Robertson, 1899). Under the Act, men and boys were forbidden to ‘wear or put on Highland clothes including; the kilt, plaid and no tartan or party-coloured Plaid or stuff was to be use for Great Coats or for Upper Coats’."

So basically what I'm saying is, that banning clothing is an ancient idea that belongs in the 18th century, not the 21st. It's not the most modern dress, but it's personal freedom. If it's worn voluntarily, then why suppress it?

They offend me, I live in Dewsbury and anyone passing thro' would think it was our national costume!!!!!!!!, it seems all the rage with these young asian women since the court case with that teacher who was sacked for wearing one during lessons. Everywhere you go you see these eyes staring at you through those slits, you can not read the wearers facial expressions so you have no idea what they are thinking as you pass by. It could be any one underneath!!!

OFFENSIVE, OFFENSIVE, OFFENSIVE,

Well, I tried to write to my MP about it, but when I posted the letter, the postbox walked off.