Are hijabs focused on beyond what would be expected from the fact that they are extreme - they cover the user blocking identification, they prevent socialization, they stigmatize the wearer, and unlike some symbols (ex: a Sikh turban) they're forced upon the wearers by non-wearers - they signify the wearer is a possession who must be kept "clean" for her purchaser.
It's reasonable that hijabs would have been the straw that broke the electoral camel's back, and the focus of most of the enforcement, while the law is a general law without undue focus on hijabs. Hijabs are regressive in a way yarmulkas are not.
It's reasonable that hijabs would have been the straw that broke the electoral camel's back, and the focus of most of the enforcement, while the law is a general law without undue focus on hijabs. Hijabs are regressive in a way yarmulkas are not.