“For less attentive readers, it should be pointed out that the ban refers only to the wearing of, for example, a niqab in public (!!!), in private Muslims (but everyone else) can still wear what they want,“ Kolman wrote. He added that it is absurd to complain that anyone is dictating what people can and can not wear.
Kolman noted that France is a pioneer in such prohibitions. He also mentioned some of the positives of the ban. He first pointed to the security aspect, because face cover de facto makes it impossible to identify the hidden individual. He sees the second benefit in the possibility of higher social interactions.
“When someone’s face is covered, we hear his or her voice, but the rest of the communication is definitely horrible. This can cause not only misunderstanding, but also a non-conforming experience for the uncovered rest of the population,” Kolman wrote.
In the end, Kolman recalled the European Court of Human Rights ruling on similar French laws, saying they did not oppose the protection of human rights.