A burka ban would impinge on basic freedoms

SIR – I have been an active member of Ukip since its foundation in the early Nineties, having stood for the party at four elections. My support arose not only from dislike of Britain’s subjection to an alien bureaucratic regime, but also on account of Ukip’s being the sole genuinely libertarian political party in this country.

Now I read, to my dismay, that the party’s primary concerns include an insistence on banning the wearing of the burka (report, May 26).

The idea of extending state power to determine what we choose to wear is as sinister as it is silly, and, consequently, I shall not be voting for Ukip on this occasion. Nikolai Tolstoy

Southmoor, Berkshire

SIR – Ukip’s leader Paul Nuttall wishes to ban the burka and niqab because such clothing “hides identity, puts up barriers to communication, limits employment opportunities, hides evidence of domestic abuse, and prevents intake of essential vitamin D from sunlight”.

My sunglasses have much the same effect. Would I still be able to wear them, do you think? Juliet Bothams

Alton, Hampshire

SIR – Michael Deacon’s disparagement of Paul Nuttall’s remarks about the wearing of the full-face veil (May 27) obscures a very important point.

I recently treated an exclusively breast-fed 15-month-old boy, of Middle Eastern parentage, who was suffering from tetany (a muscular spasm of the hand or the forearm resulting from severe lack of calcium) and enlarged, painful wrists and joints. He had two blue upper incisor teeth resulting from failure of dentine formation, making the diagnosis of rickets an easy one.

Neither he nor his mother had detectable Vitamin D in their blood.

The child improved rapidly on replacement therapy, but the teeth were lost. His mother did not wear an opaque veil but, apart from her face and hands, she was covered at all times in public. The lessons are obvious. David Abell

Portsmouth, Hampshire