Even though male British terror suspects have concealed their identities under the Burka thus far, personally I would still feel uneasy about banning facial veiling in the street. However, one bad incident could harden many peoples opinion on that. So far as requiring facial exposure in schools, shops, banks medical premises etc. Yes, absolutely establishments and employers alike should be able to set that as a rule. In court, no compromise. One rule for all.
"Those calling for a veil ban in Britain have clearly ignored such depressingly routine cases." What an impertinent assertion. On the contrary, with any such legislation it's entirely expected that routine enforcement cases arise. And whether that's depressing entirely depends on where your sympathies lay.
And the charge that the legislation ""somehow legitimised physical attacks on them"? Could it be that repeated riots by young Muslims, attacking police cars and police stations and burning and destroying millions of euros worth of property, and the threats of terrorist consequences, from multiple fundamentalist sources might have played a part in "somehow legitimising" attacks on the continuing veil wearers?
Now what is this nonsense about an offensive myth? Here is something which isn't a myth. Having struggled heroically for centuries to achieve emancipation and equality many western females (and males) are offended at the site of symbols of a grossly patriarchal, misogynistic, regressive segregationist ideology 'recently' evident in society.
Facial masking is not an Islamic code. Veiling has little to do with religion and everything to do with the politics of culture. And whether we like it or not, accept the fact that culture is alien to Western Europe, and (dangerously) it is centuries out of phase in a backward direction. We no longer execute homosexuals, or apostates. Don't flog or kill adulterers. Don't require four male witnesses to prove rape. We even allow the performance of music.
And if there are any Muslims out there who are not actively seeking to undermine and overthrow Europe's secular democracies and replace them with Islamic states then either they are not understanding the core instructions of their own scripture, or they are "unpure", Muslims who are compromising with unbelievers, in order to enjoy the benefits of a wealthier more libertarian culture, or they are simply caught between two divergent worlds and in denial about Islamism's patriarchy, expansionist credo and controlling political nature.
France's ban on the wearing of face-covering headgear in public places is not specific to Muslim face masks, but all face masks for males or females. Like their law on secularity and conspicuous religious symbols in schools, it applies to everyone of any religious persuasion.
Freedom cannot be absolute. Democracy does not and cannot insist on complete freedom (anarchy). France's government (any government) must reconcile competing views and interests in order to find the position most acceptable to the largest number. And particularly to preserve the values shared by the majority of citizens, which form the backbone of their national identity. The overwhelming democratic will of the people of France is that they wish to protect the secular nature of their government, their education system and their nation. And they are going to do so actively and timeously. Understandable and legitimate.
