It is your religious outlook whether you would feel pressuring a religious woman to take off her veil is closer to women contemplating a country where rape can in certain circumstances have legal cover, or a country where women cant drive. In either instance however, it is a discriminatory, sexist law that women need to live with in that country, and should be criticised, just as this is a discriminatory, Islamophobic ruling.
"Pressuring a religious woman to take off her veil"? Even by GS standards thats stretching it too much. What I have said, multiple times, is that I don't think full-face niqaab is part of Islam - it may be part of Bedouin culture - but if some lady wants to take a full face veil, more power to them. Its their choice. Hope its clear.
What I do say is that, all things being equal, people should live in a place that is more closely aligned with their religious and cultural values. I hope its not too difficult a concept to understand? What I am talking about is common sense (granted its fairly uncommon), and not legislation.
And when you talk about criticizing discreiminatory, sexist laws, I am with you. Whether its the Turkish or French extreme where they take secularism to a new level by forcing women to take off hijaab, or the Saudi or Afghani extreme where they beat women who are not in veil - all these should be criticized. Granted here we are talking about France and French law. I don't agree with their court's ruling regarding this case. I don't like the direction of French (or Dutch) political landscape that is becoming dramatically anti-Islamic. To the extent we can't influence either of these, my personal suggestion is for people to consider practical alternatives. Not to appear callous towards Ms Silmi's husband, however pls note that buses are every where. Its not like bus drivers are only in demand in France.
And I completely agree with Ms Silmi's husband when he says that he doesn't feel welcome in France (any more). Even from a distance, and with my knowledge of this case limited to a 3-page discussion on Gupshup, I think he's got it absolutely spot on. Now, we can parse the argument of basic human rights, religious freedoms, freedom to dress, secularism, bad law, anti-muslim bias, free speech and all other spectacular theoretical concepts, for Ms Silmi and her family, its a real-life decision and not just an online yip and yap.