When it comes to religious requirements especially, we know that outlawing certain garments in public doesn’t make women shed the offending item of clothing; it just makes women refrain from public interactions.

I’m not sure that’s a good argument. A hypothetical analogy: outlawing beating your wife in public might lead men do it more in private. Does that mean it’s a mistake to outlaw public wife-beating?

Surely the principal is to legislate against things considered wrong (e.g. female subordination). The symbols of that wrong (i.e. headcoverings) inevitably become a part of the scope of that legislation.

Secondly, many Muslim women choose to cover despite the objections of their family and spouses. A friend at work chose to begin wearing hijab years after getting married and her husband (from traditionally conservative Pakistan) simply conceded to her wishes. Members of her family objected as they’ve never worn the various head coverings. But ultimately, it was her CHOICE. Denying choice based on someone else’s discomfort is an offense to human rights.

Third, for those who compare the Muslim and Western viewpoints, I’ll remind you of a few facts. Within living memory, women were considered property under U.S. law in some respects. (See Lord and Master laws) Until the 90’s, women could not charge their husbands with rape, because their bodies became property at the moment of marriage. Even today, rape cases are replete with public discussions of a woman’s previous sexual history, mode of dress, “putting herself in a dangerous situation,” etc. How many rape victims are told they “asked for it” by not being pure enough or modest enough or because they dared to be in a situation not deemed fit for women (like being alone with a man or out at night). The attitude that the revelation of a woman’s body (even partly) would lead a man to unspeakable acts beyond his ability to control is NOT purely a Western one.

Because the State has an obligation to create a society that is as equal as possible.
The state cannot take a “laissez faire” attitude to this. And shame on you for even suggesting this.

If a person is drowning in a pool near you – your freedom of action and expression no longer exist. You must help immediately. You are legally obliged. Promoting swimming lessons is not a valid alternative.

What people wear is already controlled in France and elsewhere. Try walking around naked in public if you are unaware of this.

Also be aware you are supporting a radical chauvinistic interpretation of a religion.

Wearing a Burka is not a “choice” or a “freedom”when you are pressured and indoctrinated into wearing it from the age of puberty.
It also excludes the wearer from interacting normlly in society and excludes others from doing so with the wearer. It is a public advertisement of ridiculouis loathsome and biologically inaccurate view that women are only an object of sexual,desire, that men cannot control themselves and that withdrawing from society is the only option.

You may not agree, but the overwhelming majority of people in France expect the state to have a say in society and to ensure its stays secular. In other words as little religous influence as possible.

Freedom of expression is not some ABSOLUTE which we must all obey to. In fact NO country anywhere considers it as such.

Freedom of expression is always balanced with other rights and obligations such as Equality or Solidarity with others or state security.
In this case the supposed “Freedom” to wear a burka is less important then the Freedom to not wear one and less important then Equality of women. A Burka IS a symbol of submission of women and as such advertises the denial of the basic rights of all people to Equality.

I would have thought a feminists would be more concerned about lapidation and other crimes in uncivilised countries.

As it was said in the post, the women with out burqas will just not be in public as much as before, will not have the freedoms to be active in society, and will become even more of prisoners in their homes and communities than the government is perceiving them to be by just wearing the religious attire.

Well yeah, but if white people can’t see the problem then who the fuck cares.

THAT is the core of this discussion. Everything else is just set dressing.

The desire for women to express themselves however they wish could be used as an argument for this ruling. But consider if the woman actually DOES wish to wear the burqa, if it is her decision and is not expressly required by her husband or other men in the family. Who are we to say that women who dress conservatively in other ways are not told to do so by their husbands? By removing the burqa from public dress, it doesn’t actually solve the perceived problem.

As it was said in the post, the women with out burqas will just not be in public as much as before, will not have the freedoms to be active in society, and will become even more of prisoners in their homes and communities than the government is perceiving them to be by just wearing the religious attire.