French Veil Ban Passes Important Test

[TimothyC]

7 October 2010 Last updated at 12:42 ET
French veil ban clears last legal hurdle

France's constitutional court has approved the law set to ban wearing the Islamic full veil in public.

It approved it almost in its entirety, making one small change: the law will not apply to public places of worship where it may violate religious freedom.

The proposed measure had already been passed by parliament. It is due to come into force next spring.
Continue reading the main story
Related stories

* French Senate approves veil ban
* Making veil-wearers criminals

The ban has strong public support, but critics point out that only a handful of French Muslims wear the full veil.

The law makes it illegal to wear garments such as the niqab or burka, which incorporate a full-face veil, anywhere in public.

Under the ban, persons found wearing a full veil in public will face a fine of 150 euros (£130) and/or a citizenship course.

Those found to force women to wear a full veil will face a 30,000-euro fine and a one-year jail term.
Continue reading the main story
PATH TO VEIL BAN

* Review: French Constitutional Council studies new law once it is ratified
* Introduction: Takes effect six months after ratification
* Ruling: Challenge possible through the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg

* Face-veil driver fined in France

A last challenge is possible at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, where decisions are binding.

Under the law, there is a six-month period of "education" to explain to women already wearing a face veil that they face arrest and a fine if they continue to do so in public spaces.

There are estimated to be only about 2,000 women wearing the full veil in France.

President Nicolas Sarkozy has backed the ban as part of a wider debate on French identity, but opponents say the government is pandering to far-right voters.

Spain and Belgium are debating similar legislation.

French burqa ban clears last legal obstacle
By the CNN Wire Staff
October 7, 2010 3:19 p.m. EDT

(CNN) -- France's law banning the burqa and other Islamic face coverings in public places is legal, top constitutional authorities in France ruled Thursday, clearing the final hurdle before the ban goes into effect.

The ban passed both houses of the French legislature by overwhelming margins earlier this year, and is scheduled to come into effect in the spring.

The law imposes a fine of 150 euros ($190) and/or a citizenship course as punishment for wearing a face-covering veil. Forcing a woman to wear a niqab or a burqa will be punishable by a year in prison or a 15,000-euro ($19,000) fine, the government said, calling it "a new form of enslavement that the republic cannot accept on its soil."

Lawmakers also cited security reasons for forbidding people from covering their faces in public.

The French Constitutional Council said the law did not impose disproportionate punishments or prevent the free exercise of religion in a place of worship, finding therefore that "the law conforms to the Constitution."

A panel of French lawmakers recommended a ban last year, and lawmakers unanimously passed a non-binding resolution in May calling the full-face veil contrary to the laws of the nation.

"Given the damage it produces on those rules which allow the life in community, ensure the dignity of the person and equality between sexes, this practice, even if it is voluntary, cannot be tolerated in any public place," the French government said when it sent the measure to parliament in May.

French people back the ban by a margin of more than four to one, the Pew Global Attitudes Project found in a survey earlier this year.

Some 82 percent of people polled approved of a ban, while 17 percent disapproved. That was the widest support the Washington-based think tank found in any of the five countries it surveyed.

Clear majorities also backed burqa bans in Germany, Britain and Spain, while two out of three Americans opposed it, the survey found.

Amnesty International has repeatedly urged France not to impose the ban, saying it violates European human rights law.

The ban pertains to the burqa, a full-body covering that includes a mesh over the face, and the niqab, a full-face veil that leaves an opening only for the eyes.

The hijab, which covers the hair and neck but not the face, and the chador, which covers the body but not the face, apparently are not banned by the law.

However, a 2004 law in France bans the wearing or displaying of overt religious symbols in schools -- including the wearing of headscarves by schoolgirls.

The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life estimates that France has about 3.5 million Muslims, or about 6 percent of the population.

France does not keep its own statistics on religious affiliation of the population, in keeping with its laws requiring the state to be strictly secular.

I'm a bit unclear on what the punishment is going to be (is it 15000 or 30000 Euros). But I say Viva Le France!

[Solauren]

I like the final adjustment. Yeah, in a place of worship, you need that freedom.

However, step out of the building, and you better take off the veil.

That works for me.

[TimothyC]

Great, more victimless crime laws. And they threw in religious persecution too! It must have come free.

Victimless?

You think that women who are forced (by their husbands) to cover their faces in public are not victims, and deserving of the protection under law?

The small chance that a woman would want to wear a full veil in public has lost her right to do so is a small price to pay for not only the protection of the women who gain a bit of freedom (because the people forcing them to wear it now face consequences for doing so), not to mention the gain in security for everyone.

[Master_Baerne]

Just because it's culturally appropriate doesn't make it not wrong. Good for France.

[Julhelm]

Good for the french. Unfortunately there's not a chance in hell we'll get anything like it here in Sweden.

[General Zod]

Great, more victimless crime laws. And they threw in religious persecution too! It must have come free.

It's not like full face coverings make it more difficult for the police to identify criminal suspects or anything.

[Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba]

Great, more victimless crime laws. And they threw in religious persecution too! It must have come free.

It's not like full face coverings make it more difficult for the police to identify criminal suspects or anything.

Yeah, like how we ban wearing sunglasses and hoodies.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

So there is a problem here. Veils, though a cultural artifact, have also been used as a tool of gender oppression, to the point that the French government decided something needs to be done about it. Thus they make it illegal.

Now I can understand some of the reasoning behind this: Try and compel certain radical elements of Islamic culture to become more open, to cast off what westerners see as a tool of oppression. I can get behind that, except...

In certain radical/highly conservative portions of Islamic culture, the average woman would not be allowed out of the house except when she's wearing a veil. If she's no longer allowed to wear a veil, and nothing else is done to change the patriarchal nature of this scenario, what's going to happen? Oh that's right: She'll be allowed out of the house even less, which means she'll have even less chance to associate with others and integrate with outside cultures. Not to mention the fact that it doesn't matter how much of a 'tool of oppression' the veil is, it's still just a tool, and it doesn't matter how 'enlightened' we are in comparison to them, a significant percentage of them still feel that it is an important part of their culture, and we're directly attacking that.

So in an effort to integrate them, we've basically 1) given them all the psychological justification they need to accuse us of trying to attack and erase aspects of their culture, and 2) given them another excuse to try and further isolate one whole gender from outside influences.

I really don't think this is the right way to go about things.

[Bakustra]

Great, more victimless crime laws. And they threw in religious persecution too! It must have come free.

Victimless?

You think that women who are forced (by their husbands) to cover their faces in public are not victims, and deserving of the protection under law?

The small chance that a woman would want to wear a full veil in public has lost her right to do so is a small price to pay for not only the protection of the women who gain a bit of freedom (because the people forcing them to wear it now face consequences for doing so), not to mention the gain in security for everyone.

So the highly conservative Muslims who would force their wives to wear the burqa or niqab will just throw up their hands and cry "welp, time to embrace freedom!" at this? I'm not sure how this liberates women except in a symbolic way that also comes off as religious oppression. For that matter, do you have statistical evidence as to which one is more common (wanting to be veiled vs. being forced to veil)?

That's ignoring the consequences among other Muslims who feel that the veil is recidivistic or a consequence of misinterpretation but now feel alienated by French society and the potential bans that would follow in the rest of Europe. Or, for that matter, the fact that this seems part of a campaign to erase any Islamic cultural identity, since they ban the hijab in schools. So since many French Muslims don't wear the veil, and a majority of French Muslims are not particularly observant, this merely increases tensions for a tiny, dubious gain. What a waste.

[Thanas]

I have the impression this is less targeted at those who already have been indoctrinated their whole life, but more against children. Coupled with strict enforcement of school attendance, you might get some of them to get used to the idea of not wearing a veil.

[Bakustra]

I have the impression this is less targeted at those who already have been indoctrinated their whole life, but more against children. Coupled with strict enforcement of school attendance, you might get some of them to get used to the idea of not wearing a veil.

Well, that's still of dubious benefit, though. There are only about 2000 women in France estimated to wear the burqa or niqab, according to the article. Unless their families all gather together in one place, they're still going to regularly associate with other Muslims that don't wear the veil, and the same for marriage- unless the groups that wear the veil are so insular that they only marry each other, then the kids are going to marry out of the group and if they were being coerced, would leave that coercion behind. Even if not coerced, there would still be decay from people who move away from that system of belief. So without a steady flux of ultraconservative Muslims into France, the number of people wearing the veil would still drop.

If the French government really wants to intervene for kids, they would be better to do so with the curriculum in public schools, I think. There, they could encourage free-thinking and go for a more subtle route than a ban. Even the part of the law about prosecuting people who coerce their wives into wearing the niqab/burqa would be far less controversial, since it can be framed as protecting religious freedom and diversity.

[TimothyC]

Victimless?

You think that women who are forced (by their husbands) to cover their faces in public are not victims, and deserving of the protection under law?

The small chance that a woman would want to wear a full veil in public has lost her right to do so is a small price to pay for not only the protection of the women who gain a bit of freedom (because the people forcing them to wear it now face consequences for doing so), not to mention the gain in security for everyone.

So the highly conservative Muslims who would force their wives to wear the burqa or niqab will just throw up their hands and cry "welp, time to embrace freedom!" at this? I'm not sure how this liberates women except in a symbolic way that also comes off as religious oppression. For that matter, do you have statistical evidence as to which one is more common (wanting to be veiled vs. being forced to veil)?

That's ignoring the consequences among other Muslims who feel that the veil is recidivistic or a consequence of misinterpretation but now feel alienated by French society and the potential bans that would follow in the rest of Europe. Or, for that matter, the fact that this seems part of a campaign to erase any Islamic cultural identity, since they ban the hijab in schools. So since many French Muslims don't wear the veil, and a majority of French Muslims are not particularly observant, this merely increases tensions for a tiny, dubious gain. What a waste.

Because when the alternative is is the Creeping Islamisation of England (Link 1 Link 2 Link 3), and when The people who come out for these bans the strongest are the Moderate Muslims Such as the French Urban Regeneration Minister Fadela Amara it tells you something:

[The burka is]not a piece of fabric but the political manipulation of a religion that enslaves women and disputes the principal of equality between men and women, one of the founding principles of our republic. It also represents the oppression of women, their enslavement, their humiliation. In addition to sexual oppression and poverty, Muslim women suffer a third form of oppression - extreme religiosity.

I can't get to the original source, by you will find that quote is corroborated across open sources.

[Bakustra]

So the highly conservative Muslims who would force their wives to wear the burqa or niqab will just throw up their hands and cry "welp, time to embrace freedom!" at this? I'm not sure how this liberates women except in a symbolic way that also comes off as religious oppression. For that matter, do you have statistical evidence as to which one is more common (wanting to be veiled vs. being forced to veil)?

That's ignoring the consequences among other Muslims who feel that the veil is recidivistic or a consequence of misinterpretation but now feel alienated by French society and the potential bans that would follow in the rest of Europe. Or, for that matter, the fact that this seems part of a campaign to erase any Islamic cultural identity, since they ban the hijab in schools. So since many French Muslims don't wear the veil, and a majority of French Muslims are not particularly observant, this merely increases tensions for a tiny, dubious gain. What a waste.

Because when the alternative is is the Creeping Islamisation of England (Link 1 Link 2 Link 3), and when The people who come out for these bans the strongest are the Moderate Muslims Such as the French Urban Regeneration Minister Fadela Amara it tells you something:

[The burka is]not a piece of fabric but the political manipulation of a religion that enslaves women and disputes the principal of equality between men and women, one of the founding principles of our republic. It also represents the oppression of women, their enslavement, their humiliation. In addition to sexual oppression and poverty, Muslim women suffer a third form of oppression - extreme religiosity.

I can't get to the original source, by you will find that quote is corroborated across open sources.

Creeping Islamization? I try to have a serious conversation with you, and you cry "culture war"? You're an incredible dick, you know that? Maybe you could answer my questions, rather than religion-baiting about how an effort at cultural sensitivity is clearly an effort to take control of the country. Are you going to start talking about "dhimmitude" or enforced shari'a or any other Islamophobic conspiracies, too? Are you?

Try to be a little less disingenuous, please. One person does not speak for the majority of Muslims. Apparently, in addition to being a credulous sap, you also have difficulty with understanding what anecdotes and data are. Please return after refreshing yourself on the difference.

[Psychic_Sandwich]

Yeah, like how we ban wearing sunglasses and hoodies.

In Britain, in fact, hoodies, motorcycle helmets, masks and so on are banned in many shopping centres and such, where there's a non-trivial chance that it would be useful to have people's faces on CCTV when they might otherwise not wish it. I don't imagine it's much different in France, although I could be wrong.

[TimothyC]

Creeping Islamization? I try to have a serious conversation with you, and you cry "culture war"? You're an incredible dick, you know that?

I'm trying to have a serious conversation with you as well. You just don't like the fact that for Islam it is a Culture War. I do think that radical Islam represents a potentially existenial threat to western civilization, and the French obviously feel that it is a threat to French Culture.

Maybe you could answer my questions, rather than religion-baiting about how an effort at cultural sensitivity is clearly an effort to take control of the country. Are you going to start talking about "dhimmitude" or enforced shari'a or any other Islamophobic conspiracies, too? Are you?

Cultural sensitivity only works when the other side is open to being sensitive back, which Radical Muslim's are not. And let's look at those questions:

So the highly conservative Muslims who would force their wives to wear the burqa or niqab will just throw up their hands and cry "welp, time to embrace freedom!" at this? I'm not sure how this liberates women except in a symbolic way that also comes off as religious oppression. For that matter, do you have statistical evidence as to which one is more common (wanting to be veiled vs. being forced to veil)?

I've never seen an instance were a woman voluntarily wore a Burka. Please show me some data.

That's ignoring the consequences among other Muslims who feel that the veil is recidivistic or a consequence of misinterpretation but now feel alienated by French society and the potential bans that would follow in the rest of Europe. Or, for that matter, the fact that this seems part of a campaign to erase any Islamic cultural identity, since they ban the hijab in schools. So since many French Muslims don't wear the veil, and a majority of French Muslims are not particularly observant, this merely increases tensions for a tiny, dubious gain. What a waste.

The French have decided that Wearing a Burka is something that will not be accepted in France.

[Shroom Man 777]

Turns out radical Islam is in the minority, though doing stuff like bombing their countries and committing atrocities to their people, from deceit-wars to torturing people of dubious levels of guilt, will do much to radicalize the rest of the Mohammedians who may be in the middle or who may be uncertain of which side to take. Turns out the West gives its enemies the very ammunition they use to attack the West, from Stinger missiles to Iraqi nerve gas to Iranian F-14s to acts that fuel the radicals and increase their strengths, lol who knew am i rite etcetera.

As for this issue, I am undecided. On one hand, women being forced to wear stupid clothes for religious stupidity is stupid. On the other hand, the cultural war rhetoric strikes me in the head and sends my eyes rolling back, like some kind of concussion or brain damage causing brain swelling and increased intracranial pressure. The cultural war rhetoric might be a double-edged sword in that it may make the middle-siding Mohammedians insecure and push them to a place where we wouldn't want them to be pushed.

Then again, I guess banning articles of clothing doesn't radicalize and anger the Mohammedians as much as bombing their cities or invading their countries under lies, cause those attempts at quelling radicalization ends up actually radicalizing them even more, haha.

I don't see the big danger of an Islamist majority popping up in France or something though. The West can always just prop up some dictator or inhumane regime over there, like it does with the rest of the Middle East. If it works there, then it can work in other places where the cultural Mujahadeen win their wars and Islaminate the areas. Who cares if they're actually enforcing Shariah law or doing horrible things to Feelipeeni migrant workers, as long as their King Abdullahs and Ayatollahs of Rock and Rollah kowtow to Western foreign interests, etcetera. This technique is what the West has done for the last half-century, I think this will be more effective for France/Europe/elsewhere than banning silly headgear.

[Big Phil]

So the highly conservative Muslims who would force their wives to wear the burqa or niqab will just throw up their hands and cry "welp, time to embrace freedom!" at this? I'm not sure how this liberates women except in a symbolic way that also comes off as religious oppression. For that matter, do you have statistical evidence as to which one is more common (wanting to be veiled vs. being forced to veil)?

That's ignoring the consequences among other Muslims who feel that the veil is recidivistic or a consequence of misinterpretation but now feel alienated by French society and the potential bans that would follow in the rest of Europe. Or, for that matter, the fact that this seems part of a campaign to erase any Islamic cultural identity, since they ban the hijab in schools. So since many French Muslims don't wear the veil, and a majority of French Muslims are not particularly observant, this merely increases tensions for a tiny, dubious gain. What a waste.

Muslims in France are already alienated. There are many people born in France of North African ancestry who are still not French citizens. Christ, there were riots about this a few years back. This can't possibly make things any worse, but it might make things better by preventing abuse of women and children in the name of religious freedom.

[Shroom Man 777]

Okay, let's ban articles of clothing, I am sure it will deal with the root cause of alienated Muslims and the local and international issues that radicalize Muslims and cause their anger towards Western society.

[Bakustra]

Creeping Islamization? I try to have a serious conversation with you, and you cry "culture war"? You're an incredible dick, you know that?

I'm trying to have a serious conversation with you as well. You just don't like the fact that for Islam it is a Culture War. I do think that radical Islam represents a potentially existenial threat to western civilization, and the French obviously feel that it is a threat to French Culture.

More conspiracy theories, but you switch back and forth between "radical Islam" and "Islam". So are all Muslims the servants of Satan theistic theocracy, or just a nebulous group that you prefer not to define?

Maybe you could answer my questions, rather than religion-baiting about how an effort at cultural sensitivity is clearly an effort to take control of the country. Are you going to start talking about "dhimmitude" or enforced shari'a or any other Islamophobic conspiracies, too? Are you?

Cultural sensitivity only works when the other side is open to being sensitive back, which Radical Muslim's are not. And let's look at those questions:

So all Muslims in Britain are radical, then. I see that you have decided to go for an incredibly broad interpretation of "radical", and ignore the possibility that more Muslims exist than radical ones.

So the highly conservative Muslims who would force their wives to wear the burqa or niqab will just throw up their hands and cry "welp, time to embrace freedom!" at this? I'm not sure how this liberates women except in a symbolic way that also comes off as religious oppression. For that matter, do you have statistical evidence as to which one is more common (wanting to be veiled vs. being forced to veil)?

I've never seen an instance were a woman voluntarily wore a Burka. Please show me some data.

It is painfully clear that you have little or no contact with Muslims, let alone the hyperconservative ones that wear the burqa or niqab. So what makes you think that the handful of women you may have seen in the supermarket or at the zoo with a niqab or burqa were being browbeaten into doing so? Why are you assuming that you have a representative sample?

That's ignoring the consequences among other Muslims who feel that the veil is recidivistic or a consequence of misinterpretation but now feel alienated by French society and the potential bans that would follow in the rest of Europe. Or, for that matter, the fact that this seems part of a campaign to erase any Islamic cultural identity, since they ban the hijab in schools. So since many French Muslims don't wear the veil, and a majority of French Muslims are not particularly observant, this merely increases tensions for a tiny, dubious gain. What a waste.

The French have decided that Wearing a Burka is something that will not be accepted in France.

That doesn't make it any smarter or more effective, no matter how poorly you capitalize.

So the highly conservative Muslims who would force their wives to wear the burqa or niqab will just throw up their hands and cry "welp, time to embrace freedom!" at this? I'm not sure how this liberates women except in a symbolic way that also comes off as religious oppression. For that matter, do you have statistical evidence as to which one is more common (wanting to be veiled vs. being forced to veil)?

That's ignoring the consequences among other Muslims who feel that the veil is recidivistic or a consequence of misinterpretation but now feel alienated by French society and the potential bans that would follow in the rest of Europe. Or, for that matter, the fact that this seems part of a campaign to erase any Islamic cultural identity, since they ban the hijab in schools. So since many French Muslims don't wear the veil, and a majority of French Muslims are not particularly observant, this merely increases tensions for a tiny, dubious gain. What a waste.

Muslims in France are already alienated. There are many people born in France of North African ancestry who are still not French citizens. Christ, there were riots about this a few years back. This can't possibly make things any worse, but it might make things better by preventing abuse of women and children in the name of religious freedom.

How will it make things better, without a police state being established? If women really are being coerced into wearing the burqa, then why would they be able to contact the police about it? Are you seriously suggesting that the French government establish regular surveillance of its Islamic population? Way to strike a blow for equality!

[TimothyC]

More conspiracy theories, but you switch back and forth between "radical Islam" and "Islam". So are all Muslims the servants of Satan theistic theocracy, or just a nebulous group that you prefer not to define?

Because all too often, the moderates don't speak out against the radicals. This happens in every religion. The difference here is that the moderates are speaking out, and thus

So all Muslims in Britain are radical, then. I see that you have decided to go for an incredibly broad interpretation of "radical", and ignore the possibility that more Muslims exist than radical ones.

Unfortunately, in the UK, it would appear that it is the radical Muslims that are setting the agenda

It is painfully clear that you have little or no contact with Muslims, let alone the hyperconservative ones that wear the burqa or niqab. So what makes you think that the handful of women you may have seen in the supermarket or at the zoo with a niqab or burqa were being browbeaten into doing so? Why are you assuming that you have a representative sample?

So my Ex doesn't count? She only wore a hijab, but even that was due to social pressure.

That doesn't make it any smarter or more effective, no matter how poorly you capitalize.

It does make it The Law™, and a law that has now passed The French Constitutional Council. And There was at most two errors in capitalization in that the line you reference.

How will it make things better, without a police state being established? If women really are being coerced into wearing the burqa, then why would they be able to contact the police about it? Are you seriously suggesting that the French government establish regular surveillance of its Islamic population? Way to strike a blow for equality!

By providing legal backing to those women who want to escape, and those who would otherwise be forced to wear a Burka in public by male relatives.

As for a police state, get back to me when Christians can build a church in Saudi Arabia, and Christian Girls are not kidnapped in Egypt and forcibly converted. Get back to me when Islam gets civilized.

Because when the alternative is is the Creeping Islamisation of England (Link 1 Link 2 Link 3), and when The people who come out for these bans the strongest are the Moderate Muslims Such as the French Urban Regeneration Minister Fadela Amara it tells you something:

How the fuck is that "creeping Islamisation"?

Covered in This Thread

[Simon_Jester]

Okay, let's ban articles of clothing, I am sure it will deal with the root cause of alienated Muslims and the local and international issues that radicalize Muslims and cause their anger towards Western society.

It won't. But this is very in-character for France, and not just as a "fuck Muslims" gesture.

France has a long and messy history with its own religious institutions too; the original French Revolution that colors French ideas about democracy and political change was radically opposed to the Catholic Church's domination of France at the time. That vein of anti-clericalism has been around for a long time, and so in many ways opposition to religious institutions seen as oppressive is built into notions of what democracy means for some French people.

That has a lot to do with why they're voting to ban burqas when, say, the US is not. The US doesn't have a strong tradition of actively anti-religious politics; France does.

Of course, in this case it doesn't help at all that this will be seen by the Muslim minority as an effort by the French majority to dictate the terms of how they are permitted to live (which it is)*, while at the same time excluding them from full participation in French society (which they do)**. So it may well be a counterproductive move on France's part, though it's not surprising to me that they'd try it.

*Even granting that it's justified, it IS exactly that, seriously, people.
**As shown by the lack of full citizenship for some North African-descended Muslims who were born in France, as Sanchez pointed out.

[Siege]

It's simplistic to reduce matter to just "culture war" or "France likes secularism". There's a whole bunch of factors at play here: sure there's laïcité and sure there's some fanatical Muslims in France, but there's also matters like failed immigration policies, labor wage disputes between nationals and migrants, the French involvement in Northern Africa over the past couple of centuries, even things like idiotic urban planning during the '60's and '70's and simple populism by French politicians eager to find a way to divert attention away from the plodding economy.

I'm no fan of the burqa, but banning it is only addressing a symptom of a problem, not the problem itself. Or if it is, then let's face it: with 2,000 burqas on a total population of 65 million, it's not a very serious problem. The bigger issue here is how to properly integrate French north-African Muslims into French society, and I don't think they'll get very far with a ban of the burqa. They could instead start by doing something about those preposterous banlieues... But I suppose that would take actual money and effort, and why bother with that when you could just ban the burqa and win some neat political credit with the rest of the electorate?

[VT-16]

Okay, let's ban articles of clothing, I am sure it will deal with the root cause of alienated Muslims and the local and international issues that radicalize Muslims and cause their anger towards Western society.

Hmm, genital mutilation on girls is banned. I guess that means all forms of body manipulation must be banned as well, then? Quit the slippery-slope nonsense, please. We all know perfectly well why these things get banned. Historical usage for the expressed purpose of controlling women and not allowing them to decide on their own. It was the same with ritual mutilation, it's the same with the burka. This does not exclude women from covering up with a head-scarf altogether.

[CJvR]

Good for the french. Unfortunately there's not a chance in hell we'll get anything like it here in Sweden.

Actually we allreaddy have a law that could be used in this fasion if we wanted to.
The ban on political uniforms.

[Thanas]

I have the impression this is less targeted at those who already have been indoctrinated their whole life, but more against children. Coupled with strict enforcement of school attendance, you might get some of them to get used to the idea of not wearing a veil.

Well, that's still of dubious benefit, though. There are only about 2000 women in France estimated to wear the burqa or niqab, according to the article. Unless their families all gather together in one place, they're still going to regularly associate with other Muslims that don't wear the veil, and the same for marriage- unless the groups that wear the veil are so insular that they only marry each other, then the kids are going to marry out of the group and if they were being coerced, would leave that coercion behind. Even if not coerced, there would still be decay from people who move away from that system of belief. So without a steady flux of ultraconservative Muslims into France, the number of people wearing the veil would still drop.

The problem here is that ultraconservatives tend to have a very high birthrate. So I am not sure the number would drop, especially not when you have the opposite trend in some European countries. (I can't remember where I read it, but apparently the burqa wearers in Germany have increased sharply over the last ten years).

If the French government really wants to intervene for kids, they would be better to do so with the curriculum in public schools, I think. There, they could encourage free-thinking and go for a more subtle route than a ban.

Who says they don't do so already?

Even the part of the law about prosecuting people who coerce their wives into wearing the niqab/burqa would be far less controversial, since it can be framed as protecting religious freedom and diversity.

I think that part is purely cosmetic, abused and heavily indoctrinated people do not tend to come forward against attackers.