Differences of Degree vs Differences of Kind

I'm going to argue that a liberal society should generally ignore the motives of people's practices when deciding what to ban. In particular, when deciding what sort of attire to allow in public, the same sorts of standards should be applied whether the requirements are religious or aesthetic. This is in contrast to some places, e.g. France, where symbolism is the primary criterion. (Whether religious symbols should be allowed in government institutions is a different issue.)

The Tele is reporting that a Muslim woman was asked to remove her mask before getting on a bus. I'd like to point out that it is she who raises the issue of race by denying that she's an Arab (i.e. insisting that she's Maltese-Australian). The driver criticises her for something she chooses to do. This is different in kind from the "driving while black" phenomenon in the USA.

She insists that a niqab is not a mask. The Oxford Dictionary begs to differ:

mask, n. -
I. A covering for the face, and related senses.
1. a. A covering worn on or held in front of the face for disguise, esp. one made of velvet, silk, etc., and concealing the whole face or the upper part of it (except the eyes), worn at balls and masques.

My main point is simply that there's a significant difference of degree between a Muslim woman covering her hair and covering her face. We have normal social interactions with people who cover their hair for a wide range of reasons, e.g. hats, baldness. That sort of hijab should not be banned in public. On the other hand we don't like people walking into shops (or onto busses) in balaclavas or motorcycle helmets.

I think the basic principle of fairness dictates that if we require nudists to cover up, religious nudists should not be exempt. If we require people to show their faces, religious people should not be exempt from that either.

The only question that remains, then, is whether we really do/should impose these requirements on non-religious people. My guess is that if I tried to walk onto a bus wearing a balaclava, most drivers would react in a similar way to this one. Nor should I be allowed to go into a bank wearing a gorilla mask just because the Flying Spaghetti Monster (bless his noodly appendage) says I need to wear one the third Thursday of every 30-day month.

On the other hand
In France the debate has cooled down a bit. They're saying that making a law specifically against this sort of thing would be like breaking a butterfly upon the wheel. I normally wouldn't want to say that it's question of numbers but on this point I agree, that a specific law is not necessary (and thus Muslims would even be justified in feeling persecuted by a law specifically tageting them). Current rules about not concealing your identity should be quite sufficient.