> It's illegal for a women to go topless in France (but not a man)

Is it? there are tons of topless women on French beaches. I don't know about specific laws but nobody goes topless or naked while walking in a city (in France or elsewhere). I don't see this as a great restriction on my freedom. Actually, more worrying IMHO is that if a woman were to go topless in the street, she'd get more trouble from some (religious and macho) guys than the police.

> I can't imagine anything less welcoming than being a recent refugee or immgrant

Sorry, but I don't find it scandalous to ask refugee or immigrants to make minor adjustments to their lifestyle. Every society has some common value that it wants to preserve, and as a French, I want as little intrusion of religion in public life. In particular, religion has no place in public school in my opinion, and i really hope it stays this way.

I'm actually having trouble finding any exact law, so in the interest of accuracy, I'll admit I could be wrong about French law here. This Wikipedia article says

"Chest and private parts must be covered except near bathing zones. Burqa banned."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clothing_laws_by_country

Another article I read mentioned that a particular city recently explicitly banned male toplessness, which seems to imply that the above statement about covering the chest only applies to women.

Another Wikipedia article here states that the activist group Topfreedom has protested in France, also implying that the covering the chest only applies to women.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topfreedom#France

Can anyone point to the specific law? The Wikipedia article on clothing laws doesn't have a source. I was going off what I've been told by French friends, but I'd like to know conclusively.

Perhaps the idea could be seen differently not as a ban but an enforcement of anonymity. Like its hard for me to judge you based on your username (depends on the username), but if we had profile pictures that wouldn't be the case.

I don't really agree with France on this, but could the ban have positive effects by reducing prejudice by anonymity (look at this person vs. look at this muslim person) vs teaching tolerance.

For most Muslim immigrants, their facial features and skin color are probably as much an indicator of their background as a head dress, not to mention things like accent that will ultimately give someone away. I really don't buy any argument for these policies. Being realistic, it was definitely a move to antagonize the Muslim population in France.

Every modern nation's conception of liberty differs. In no country does liberty mean that anything goes. And while many westerners (particularly Anglos) like to define liberty as "anything goes which doesn't negatively effect me", that only begs the question of where that line is to be drawn.

In France the pithy definition of political freedom is "liberty, equality, fraternity". Equality and fraternity are qualifiers on what liberty is supposed to mean, recognizing a collective responsibility component and thus helping to articulate where the line is to be drawn for when individual liberty conflicts with the long-term requirements safeguarding political liberty.

French laws don't ban Muslim dress, per se. They ban face coverings, which is only typical of some very conservative Arabic cultures. And they do so because a religious or cultural mandate that requires such dress is in direct opposition to the ideals of equality and fraternity, which are considered necessary for maintaining the liberty of the society as a whole.

We can disagree with that interpretation on many levels. But it's not illogical, per se. I don't doubt that the way it's been articulated and enforced has been corrupted by anti-Muslim and anti-Arabic animus. But it is what it is and fundamentally seems consonant with French political theory.

In the U.S. religious freedom is considered much more sacrosanct. In particular, Americans see safeguarding religious liberty as fundamental to political liberty; whereas I think the French notion is that safeguarding secularism is far more important. The reasons are historical and totally obvious--just reflect on what you learned about American and French political history in high school. In France the Catholic Church was one of the impediments to democracy. Whereas a large number of American colonists came here because of religious persecution abroad, and our political system evolved to protect religious denominations from the government and from each other.

Not head, face.

Wrong, the head dress is banned in schools.

"The wearing of all conspicuous religious symbols in public schools was previously banned in 2004 by a different law"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_ban_on_face_covering

You understand the distinction between Islamic veils/headscarves (which clearly imply religious affiliation) and clearly non-religious, headscarves worn by many style-conscious, but secular, women?

Your misunderstanding may come from terminology - a headscarf need not be religious at all, and headscarves which are not religious (it is easy to tell the difference) are NOT banned.

The headscarf to muslims is not really a religious symbol like say a priests clothes or a nuns habit. It is a piece of clothing that is required (considered mandatory by most schools) to be worn by a woman to preserve her modesty. In that viewpoint, it is like pretty much every other piece of clothing . Are pants or tops religious symbols?

Does it clearly imply religious affiliation, or cultural affiliation? Either way, it's such a petty and arbitrary distinction and I'd guess that a Muslim girl in a French school wearing a regular head scarf would still get hassled and forced to remove it.