No it is applied to everyone.
Incorrect - I never said I wanted to rob or murder anyone. YOU are discriminating against me right now. Why would you say such terrible things about my religious beliefs? Bombism has harmed no one.

I may be wrong, but I think the recent French law applies to wearing masks in public gatherings or protests. The earlier French law applied only to Burkhas in schools.

Sillier.

Courts interpret and discriminate.

If your "religion" is perceived as posing a threat to society then the courts will probably discriminate against you.

Islam is not a security threat to US or European social order...the threat is from those extremists within the religion who abuse it for their own illegitimate purposes.

added:
There are over 1 billion Muslims in the world, the overwhelming majority of whom practice their religion peacefully.

And look who is vehemently opposed to it...
No surprise there

Some Muslims may consider the Burka "a prison" for women...so do I. There are also many Christians and Jews who oppose the more restrictive practices of their extreme orthodoxies.

The courts can also determine if any law has an adverse impact on one segment of society more than society as a whole. either intended or not.

Im not defending burkas. I think the practice is archaic. I am defending religious freedom as practiced by the overwhelming majority of believers who pose no security threat.

ps... Jean-Marie Le Pen (and the extremist National Front Party) is not someone I would ever quote or want to be associated with in any way...but thats just me. :)

I suspect there is more to it than that but it makes good sense for the sake of security. The other option would be to have the ability to stop those individuals whose face is covered them and keeping within their religious practice search or inspect them veil uncovered.

More so than banning carrying briefcases, gym bags or plain old brown paper bags in public? Why is a veil a greater security threat..other than its association with one particular religion?

If there was reason to believe that an individual woman posed a security threat based on intel/surveillance connections to a suspected/known terrorists or the individual's previous writing or actions, etc., I would agree.

Otherwise, IMO, it is infringing on fundamental rights to practice one's religion as one chooses.

Good point. Maybe we should ban rucksacks and underpants?

It obscures facial recognition software, allows men to pose as women when their only goal is to evade capture, and prevents security video from recording them in accordance with the law.

But if men posed as women with their faces covered you would not?

As you pointed out, as long as you do it within the framework of the law, sure. Otherwise comply or go to jail. Pretty simple.

[perv]I would support that[/perv]

:p

So do oversized sunglasses.

Ban?

transvestite with oversized sunglasses. ban 'em

9/11 happened do to an intelligence failure, furthermore, the lose of some of these freedoms haven't stopped other attacks such as the DC sniper or the underwear bomber.

ok then it is solved. Intel informs us that this is happening. Men AND women who are known terrorists are using this means to get around the very sophisticated video and other surveillance equipment and personnel used to keep track of them or restrict their movement.
It has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with the war on terrorism.

no need, neither of those hide the wearers face.

Not true. Facial recognition software is VERY sophisticated.

Not my problem. Sucks to be them. Security will trump any whine about rights; all the time, every time, everywhere.:D