Letters: Sensible Muslims

Bigots who insist on the veil pose a threat to sensible Muslims

Sir: Jack Straw has a point and the overwhelming majority of sensible Muslims will have no problem agreeing with him. To most Muslims, the extreme form of hijab that is being adopted by a politically motivated minority or lunatic fringe of Islam is more an expression of their confrontational attitude than anything else.

Extremists and politically motivated bigots are hiding behind religious rights to propagate their views. Their bigotry does incalculable harm to the honest Muslims of Britain who, in keeping with their beliefs, want to live modestly and maintain their religious values peacefully and amicably.

The insistence of some Muslim women on adopting the burqa rather than a scarf has little to do with the demands of their faith. It is a proclamation to this country that the extremist tendency should be recognised as Islam, and the organised lobbyists can, through such recognition impose their version of "purity" and "modesty" on other Muslims.

Wearing a scarf and loose dress can satisfy the requirements of all Islamic religious injunctions and traditions. Nowhere in the Quran is there a prescribed form of dress, though there are many allusions to the effect that dress should be modest and hair should be covered.

For me, as a Muslim, this case is not about the rights of Islam or Muslims. It is about some overly devout women insisting on some form of dress. It is trivial and it belittles religious beliefs rather than elevating them. It has become offensive to both Muslims and non-Muslims. It insults our intelligence and mocks our tolerance. It creates an unnecessary fitna - or mischief - a misdemeanour the Quran warns us against.

MAHMOOD JAMAL

LONDON NW2

Sir: I am a head of science at a popular and successful secondary school in Shrewsbury. Last week we were invited by our sixth form college to attend a lecture entitled "Why Darwinism is right and Creationism is wrong", given by the esteemed Professor Steve Jones. My pupils thoroughly enjoyed the lecture, which was superbly pro-science and brilliantly illuminating.

What made the event the more thought-provoking was that the venue was a Catholic church, St Chad's in Shrewsbury, a place in fact where Darwin himself had been baptised. I don't wish to comment on the Victorian debate on science and religion since it would be nice to move on from that antiquated argument. However, what concerned me to the core was that one of my year 10 pupils, a Muslim by faith, was forbidden by his parents to attend because it was to be held in a Catholic church.

It seems so obvious to us that the tolerance our country has for different faiths should be matched by open debate and access by those cultures benefiting from our way of life. As an educator upholding the nation's values of democracy, tolerance and freedom, how do I challenge this blinkered approach without being branded a racist or something? It is not the child's fault, but what do we say to him?

PAUL MASSEY

HEAD OF SCIENCE, PRIORY SCHOOL, SHREWSBURY

Tree-planting can help the climate

Sir: I read many articles in your paper, of which "Trouble in the air" (16 October) is the latest, decrying carbon offsetting and in particular carbon offset tree-planting.

At Treeflights.com, we plant trees to offset the CO2 emissions of airline passengers. We warn our customers that their flight will not suddenly become "carbon neutral" and that the tree we plant for them will take many decades to reabsorb an equivalent quantity of CO2 to that released by the flight. I have spoken to many of our customers and without exception they say that far from encouraging a profligate attitude towards flying, our service helps them to acknowledge that what they're doing is destructive to our atmosphere and thus sets them on a path towards flying less.

It is objected that the precise amount of CO2 trees absorb is not easy to calculate, and they may die of disease or be burnt in a forest fire or be cut down, releasing the carbon back into the atmosphere.

Over the last 30 years I have planted 17,000 trees in Wales and to the best of my knowledge not one of them has died of any disease. Forest fires are not an issue around here, as anyone who has experienced a Welsh "summer" will testify. The land on which we plant our trees will be held in trust in perpetuity to ensure there is no danger of the trees being cut down.

Trees do absorb CO2 from the atmosphere. Approximately 25 per cent of the weight of a living tree is fixed atmospheric carbon. All the trees on the planet are doing a great job of cleaning up after us, with some estimates valuing their sequestration contribution at 20-25 per cent of all human emissions of CO2.

Articles like this one will result in fewer trees being planted. We desperately need more trees planted to help us reduce climate change. If you fail to understand this, you are in danger of exacerbating the very problem that you want to diminish.

RU HARTWELL

DIRECTOR, TREEFLIGHTS.COM LLANDDEWI BREFI, CEREDIGION

Sir: Michael McCarthy is right to highlight the fact that changing behaviour and processes, rather than solely paying money into carbon offsetting schemes, is the key to cutting carbon emissions and tackling climate change (Analysis, 16 October). Carbon offsetting does have a role to play but it should not be the first port of call for a business looking to fulfil its role in addressing climate change.

Any organisation truly committed to addressing climate change should first look internally at its direct emissions by, for example investing in energy efficiency, and then look externally at indirect emissions - working with other companies up and down the supply chain to find further emission reductions and new revenue opportunities. Offsetting can then be used to further mitigate emissions.

In our experience of working with companies across the UK on emission reduction, this approach of focusing on direct and supply-chain emissions delivers bottom-line financial and carbon savings year on year.

MICHAEL REA

DIRECTOR, STRATEGY & MARKETS THE CARBON TRUST, LONDON WC2

Sir: Your article "How government flights put out 1,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide" (16 October) sacrifices a sense of balance for the sake of a headline.

Depending on how one allows for flights coming into the country, aviation now accounts for about 5 per cent of CO2 emissions, or about 15 million tonnes per year. If ministers never flew anywhere the country would save emissions equivalent as little as four minutes of the annual total.

HARVEY COLE

WINCHESTER

Save our spelling from a Year Zero

Sir: Richard Butterworth's excellent letter opposing "spelling reform"(14 October) reminded me of the days when I was teaching English as a foreign language and the reactions of some of my pupils, who were all foreigners and adults.

After a lesson in which we had looked at the pronunciation of words ending in -ough a young German man sighed deeply and said, "Mrs Allen, you don't know how lucky you are being born speaking English!"

I agree absolutely with Mr Butterworth's objections to "a linguistic year zero". Another of my pupils was Norwegian. At that time G B Shaw had been advocating "spelling reform".

"Don't let them do it," urged my pupil. "Do you want to condemn all your children to being unable to read anything published before they were born? We have had several spelling reforms in Norway and that is what has happened."

VIVIEN ALLEN

CASTLETOWN , ISLE OF MAN

The West Bank is being strangled

Sir: Having just returned from 12 days on the West Bank talking to more than 150 young people in Qualquilya, Nablus, Jenin and Tulkarm about their experiences of life under the Israeli occupation we found Joe Obrart's comments (Letters, 5 October) to be staggeringly incorrect.

Even during our short visit, we saw many public facilities, homes, and roads that had been destroyed by the Israeli army and air force. We directly witnessed the daily violence of the occupation, especially at the checkpoints where young Israeli soldiers routinely provoke and humiliate Palestinians with impunity.

We also witnessed the Israeli army's shameful attempts to disrupt the education of young Palestinians, with students being regularly turned back at the checkpoints, making it impossible for them to get to their classes.

And then there were the settlements mushrooming on the hill-tops throughout the West Bank, and the Palestinian villages where their water supplies were now under Israeli control and sold back at inflated prices.

It was clear to us that the West Bank was being strangled. The violence of the occupation is extraordinary and needs to be broadcast far and wide. The resilience, humour and determination of the Palestinian people was a magnificent experience.

PROFESSOR CHRIS JONES

DR MICHAEL LAVALETTE

SCHOOL OF SOCIOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF LIVERPOOL

The general spoke up for sanity

Sir: What are Andreas Whittam Smith (Opinion, 16 October) and the others calling for General Sir Richard Dannatt to be sacked making such a fuss about?

He hasn't exhorted soldiers to go on strike, ordered them out of Iraq without the Government's authority or launched a military coup against Tony Blair's government. He has merely expressed his opinion, shared by that much-maligned section of the population known as the sane, that the continued presence of British soldiers in Iraq does no one any good.

The only thing Sir Richard did wrong was wait so long to say what he did.

LAURIE MARKS

QUEENS' COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE

Sir: All this argument over whether the head of the Army can criticise the elected government. I think it is time we redefined the boundaries between the political government of this country, Parliament, and all the other public servants who traditionally have been loyal to the Crown but not necessarily the Government.

We should do so in a way that ensures they follow all legally given government instructions but also in a way that allows them to discharge their obligations to the Crown, such as the need to consider how their actions impact on the whole of society rather than just on the constituency of their political masters.

LUKE MAGEE

ASHFORD, KENT

Don't be ill in Sussex, Mr Blair

Sir: With his apparent heart problem, Mr Blair would be well advised not to visit vast swathes of Sussex, which in NHS terms is overspent - or more honestly, under-funded. If the current proposals go ahead to downgrade four major hospitals in Sussex and close their A&E departments, any medical emergency would be referred to Brighton, Redhill or Portsmouth.

If he needed emergency treatment, he might spend the precious "golden hour", that so often is the difference between life and death, in the bottlenecks of traffic on the A23 or A27 that people in Sussex experience daily. Without a landing pad at the Royal Sussex Hospital, even air ambulance is not a solution as far as Brighton is concerned.

Unlike ordinary families, no doubt his family would be able to find a parking space should they wish to visit.

I would encourage him to exercise his "patient choice" well away from Sussex, where his policies will not save him.

J WALKINTON

LINDFIELD, WEST SUSSEX

Adoption apartheid

Sir: Does the fuss about Madonna adopting a baby from Africa smack of racism and apartheid? There are huge numbers of orphans in many countries around the world. Why shouldn't people in Britain adopt them and give them a kind and loving home? Are those who criticise such adoptions really masking a distaste of white folk adopting little people with black faces? Or am I being cynical?

ROSE DAVIES

SWANSEA

Schools for division

Sir: Congratulations to Mary Dejevsky for asking exactly the right question about religious schooling (Opinion, 17 October). Segregated schools are about as rational as segregated buses or segregated hospitals. Rather than creating more faith schools and then having to come up with ever more ways of tackling the social and cultural division that inevitably comes from their very separateness, surely it would be better to uphold the principle of non-selective, non-denominational comprehensive education for everyone. It's time to pull the plug on state funding for religious schools.

DARREN JOHNSON

GREEN PARTY MEMBER OF THE LONDON ASSEMBLY, LONDON SE1

Usurping monarch

Sir: Considering the stance of your newspaper and that of many of its readers on the subject of monarchs, perhaps I should have been surprised by your Environment Editor's welcoming story regarding an invasion of monarchs ("Invasion of the giant butterflies", 17 October). However, I was more surprised by the large photograph. This is not of the Monarch, or Milkweed butterfly, Danaus plexippus from America, but a Painted Lady.

MALCOLM BROWNSWORD

WEST HAGBOURNE, OXFORDSHIRE

Claret from the grower

Sir: Jay McInerney tells us you can buy directly from the domaine in Burgundy, but not Bordeaux (Extra, 16 October). My wife and I buy wine directly from the grower in Burgundy and on the Loire. But we have also bought claret from a lesser château in St Estèphe, a mile or so beyond the unforgettable pagodas of Château Cos d'Estournel. As Cos produces just one down from the top grade of classed growth claret, we did no more than admire its architecture and press on to buy a dozen affordable bottles from Château Clauzet.

JOHN PETER HUDSON

MIDDLETON STONEY, OXFORDSHIRE

Waste of space

Sir: Bruce Anderson (16 October) informs us: "It is impossible to open a mass-market newspaper without seeing stories about Government waste...". Golly, Bruce, fancy right-wing multi-millionaires like Rupert Murdoch and Richard Desmond using The Sun and the Express to campaign against the public services they themselves don't use. Could that possibly be why it's called "the Tory press"?

CHRISTOPHER CLAYTON

WAVERTON, CHESHIRE

Interesting? Click here to explore further