re: #123 Wendell Zurkowitz ((slave to the waffle light))

I can understand a ban on veils that cover the face: public interaction is based on the ability to identify the person we are dealing with.

I can see the ban it in banks, government buildings, etc. (including while driving as it could potentially obstruct vision). If it’s truly a case of public interaction, then I’d like to see balaclavas and any other sort of face covering banned.

But I feel that France is pushing a bit too hard on secularism.

And there are many reasons for a woman to wear a headscarf. Simply wearing one is not de facto proof that they are involved in or somehow victims of religious extremism.

Yeah, AFAIK no burkini wearing jihadis have attacked anyone. //

There was also this from Cannes, where there’s also a ban in place:

Thierry Migoule, head of municipal services for the town said: “We are not talking about banning the wearing of religious symbols on the beach … but ostentatious clothing which refers to an allegiance to terrorist movements which are at war with us.” […]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/aug/11/cannes-mayor-bans-burqinis-beachwear-must-respect-secularism

Now “ostentatious” religious apparel denotes allegiance to terrorists. So does that mean any woman wearing hijab is a terrorist (sympathizer)? What about men with beards? Oh right, can’t do that because there might be non-Muslim men who choose to have beards and we wouldn’t want to impinge on their freedoms. //

This Guardian summed it up pretty well for me. The snark made me giggle:
Burkinis: unhygienic, terrorist wear - or just a wetsuit with a hood?