I HAVE followed the Boris-andthe-burka debate and the various responses to it in the media, but I find Katy Rice’s article (The Argus, August 14) one of the finest.

She makes some important points which I have not read elsewhere.

While not ignoring the belief that the burka is oppressive of women, that it dehumanises them and renders them invisible, I find it offensive to me as a man, for it assumes that all men are either potential wife-snatchers or rapists and women need to be protected behind the “bars” of these cloth prisons for their own safety.

The Qur’an demands modesty of both men and women, but it is noticeable that it is only women who are “shrouded” while their men wear figure-hugging T-shirts and jeans.

As long as I have no immediate contact with a burka-clad woman, my only feeling when I see one is of sorrow and unease.

But if such a woman were to approach me for something more important than just asking for directions and requiring a lengthy conversation, I would insist she removed her burka in the same way that I demanded a motorcyclist who called on me at home recently remove his crash helmet and visor.

There have been instances in the past when Muslim women have appeared in court either charged with an offence or as a witness, and the judge has rightly demanded that their face coverings be removed. Why? The famous psychotherapist, Albert Mehrabian, concluded after many years in practice that he rated what his clients actually said at just 7 per cent, whereas the way the words were delivered (tone, emphasis, body language) he valued at 38 per cent and facial expressions at 55 per cent.

But let it not be thought that hiding one’s face is limited to burka-wearing Muslim women.

It is becoming far more general with men and women leaving court wearing large sunglasses to hide their faces. Personal profiles on social media often have face photos where sunglasses are being worn.

Dr Michael Johnson

Kevin Gardens, Brighton