Letters to the Editor

SIR - It is known historically that the best practices of Islam allowed tolerance towards other faiths, as evidenced by the Moors occupation of Spain for more than 700 years where religious freedom was extended to Christians and Jews.

The disrespectful caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed are in bad taste, but a religion at ease with itself would not provoke such disproportionate reactions from some of its adherents, involving the burning of buildings and issuing death threats.

It is obvious from the above that a significant minority are usurping Islam for national and political purposes. The caricatures are proving expedient for this. Such extreme manifestations are not from people who are in the least religious.

Since the secularisation of the West, open intellectual debate has been possible without the fear of persecution, some of which has been of the highest calibre, while much has tended towards irreverence, satire and puerility.

An historically-enlightened Islam would have been able to accommodate intellectual rigour and irreverent satire, and a people at ease with themselves would have been able to accept that not all would revere their Prophet and traditions.

Alec Suchi, Allerton Road, Bradford

Time for moderates

SIR - Many of your correspondents over the years and again quite recently have gone to great lengths to emphasise that the Islam faith stands for love, trust and understanding.

Having seen the quite graphic images inciting violence, murder and threatening more suicide bombings to come, it could be said that the Islam faith appears to be one to be feared rather than embraced.

One can only hope that senior figures within the Muslim faith can indeed exercise control of the more extreme followers of their chosen religion. If not, the future in terms of relationships between Muslims and those of either non-faiths or other religions is extremely bleak to say the least.

At a time when the world is in total turmoil, that's the last thing we want. But, let's face it, that's the objective of the extremists - so unless the more moderate figures within our society get to grips with the problem, anarchy here we come.

E Mills, Wrose Mount, Wrose

A cruel country

SIR - Diane Duguid (T&A, February 4) confirms what an insane country she's chosen to live in.

If it's an 'eye for an eye' then the US owes the people of Iraq a lot of eyes, and the people of Iraq owe them a lot of 'shock and awe'.

Does Mrs Duguid believe in the death penalty for children? Her country does, mine doesn't. Did she support segregation when it was in force? At least half her country did.

The United States hides its cruelty behind patriotism and love of God. In reality it's harsh, cruel and uncivilised, and if there is a God he must loathe the place and its folks!

The US shares its beloved death penalty with the likes of China and Iran and, of course, Saddam's Iraq.

Thank God I'm European.

Eric Firth, Wellington Street, Wilsden

Asylum fairness

SIR - The Home Office has started a Voluntary Assisted Return and Reintegration Programme for asylum seekers.

Under this scheme they will provide a dignified and sustainable option for asylum seekers wishing to return to their country of origin by providing advice, counselling and reintegration assistance on their return.

There are four types of asylum seekers: genuine successful asylum seekers, genuine failed asylum seekers, bogus failed asylum seekers and bogus successful asylum seekers.

The Home Office has divided them into just two types: 'successful' and 'failed' asylum seekers. So where should genuine failed asylum seekers, who have been ignored by the justice system of the UK, go?

Does the Home Office know what the result of this scheme will be? Opportunist bogus asylum seekers will benefit from this scheme but genuine failed asylum seekers will be in the same position or worse (being removed by force) and the Home Office will put their lives at risk.

I strongly support only genuine asylum seekers who flee from their country for protection not for money.

I request the immigration judges to please set some reasonable standards.

Aejaz ul Haque Malik, Oakroyd Villas, Bradford

Who are the rats?

SIR - Doesn't Raymond Harrison (T&A, February 2) realise that the 'rats,' one of which he admits to being, pay a not insignificant amount of money annually to drive their vehicles on the public highways, of which the streets he mentions and which he wants closed off, are part?

They should not, of course, drive dangerously but I wonder just how much danger, threatening Barkerend schoolchildren, is created by their parents dropping them off or picking them up in their badly-parked cars.

If these highways are made access-only then it is only just that the residents of same pay for their upkeep.

In any event, rat-run is an inappropriate name for drivers exercising their legal and paid-for rights.

P E Bird, Nab Wood Terrace, Shipley

Don't hold back

SIR - I wrote to Margaret Eaton, the leader of Bradford Council, and also the chair of the executive committee composed of six members only, regarding the proposed city centre lake.

I put forward my objections, saying that the Council had not been able to look after the small ponds at the side of the law courts, let alone a lake.

My suggestion was the whole area be recreational with seats inside shelters like Blackpool promenade. We could use every inch of it then and not have a useless lake.

I also suggested a referendum of the ratepayers and to let them decide. After all, we are approximately 400,000 against six executive members who rule the roost, the other 84 councillors rubber-stamp its decisions.

I also forecast the 'no win, no fee lawyers' would have a field day with accidents resulting from the lake.

The final sentence of her reply was: "I am satisfied that the lake can be progressed without need for a referendum and believe that the consultation process is the appropriate way forward."

So no referendum, but a consultation process!

So if you are like-minded let the Council know. They won't stop it unless you say so, like the poll tax.

B Russell, Heaton Crescent, Baildon

Punished twice

SIR - There has been much correspondence and comment in the T&A recently concerning a life sentence or the death penalty for the crime of murder.

The purpose of my letter is not to take sides in this issue, but to make a point which has, so far, not been raised.

It seems strange to me that certain states in the USA still choose to punish their murderers twice.

They give them a life sentence by keeping them on death row for 20 or more years then, just when most would be due for parole in Great Britain and Europe, they administer the death penalty.

Much as I believe that crime deserves punishment, I do not believe that a criminal should be punished twice for one crime. Even in the days of the thumb-screw and the rack, those condemned to the block were not kept waiting very long.

But of course, the civilised world has progressed since then - well, some of us have.

Barbara Crompton, Collier Lane, Baildon

A TV surprise

SIR - On the Yorkshire ITV, a programme called The Way We Were, examining life over the past 100 years, to my surprise I saw my late father Edward Kay, a council worker, in one of the scenes.

I wonder if any of your readers recorded this programme and if so would it be possible to have a copy or get one made. I would gladly meet any cost and postage, etc.

My mother is still alive (92) and she and all the grandchildren would be thrilled to catch sight of him, as brief as it was. I think he was working in Bradford when the film was taken.

I can be contacted on (01274) 676613.

Sheila Pollard, Victoria Road, Wibsey