France’s little experiment in appeasing radical Muslims by giving them a voice in the French government is not going well.

Insert expression of faux surprise here.

After the UOIF (linked to the extremist Muslim Brotherhood, which is banned in Egypt but not France) made an unexpectedly strong showing in the first election for the national Muslim Council, French interior minister Nicolas Sarkozy was loudly booed at a UOIF conference for insisting that Muslim women must remove their veils for ID photographs: MP booed for telling Muslim women to unveil.

Sarkozy made the remark on Saturday at the annual congress of the hardline Union of Islamic Organisations in France (UOIF). His words were drowned out when he said Muslims must obey the law, even if that meant baring their heads.

“The law states that the holder of a national identity card must be bare-headed in their photograph, whether they are male or female,” Sarkozy told the 7 000-strong audience.

“This is respected by Catholic nuns, and there is no justification for Muslim women not to respect it,” he said.

French commentators were alarmed earlier this month when the UOIF, styled on the fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt, won a third of votes for a national Muslim council.

The group, which seeks Islamic rule via personal purification and political action, has gained ground among young Muslims descended from North African immigrants. Sarkozy’s presence at the annual congress was described by one newspaper as “historic and very symbolic”.

But his remarks on veils provoked boos and whistles that drowned out his assurances he was speaking “as a friend”.

“We want this law to be changed because it’s unfair,” UOIF official Abdallah ben Mansour told LCI television.

“If Catholics want to remove their headgear that’s their business. But the veil is part of what makes Muslim women special, and France must accept that,” said Souad, a young, veiled woman at the congress.

Of course, one could ask: what good is an ID photo that doesn’t show a person’s complete likeness?

But then, that would be simplisme, n’est ce pas?