The bank has a sign asking patrons to remove facial concealment before entering—it’s self-evident why; anyone entering with a mask would incur a proper presumption of guilt. It would be ludicrous for someone to insist on wearing a mask in their driver license photo. I would refuse to deal with a bank teller, taxi driver, customs official, let alone a teacher, who hid behind a mask (be it a KKK hood or burka), and rightly so. This standard of freeness and openness—essential in a democratic society—cannot not be compromised in the effort to gratify one religion.

>>”A person’s interpretation of her religion’s codes should not be a decision for a political body to make.”
This is particularly absurd. I guess we ought to legalize polygamy just to satisfy the Mormons. I guess we’ll have to absolve those Christian Scientists who withhold medical care from their sick children. What’s next: stoning disobedient children because it’s part of some zealot’s “interpretation” of the Bible?

Not to mention the myriad, more pragmatic reasons for proscribing the burka. Burkas are often used to conceal women’s bruises and wounds—the products of abusive domestic relationships. Furthermore, because the burka eliminates peripheral vision, it is incompatible with activities like driving or navigating through traffic. It’s not simply a personal choice, it’s one that potentially endangers those around the burka-wearer.

I don’t think it’s a coincidence that we consider ourselves equal *in the face* of one another.

P.S. Are women really self-determining, really choosing what they wear, when the alternative to the burka is a dose of battery acid in the face?

This issue, I believe, is terribly practical as well as national. The Dutch tradition religious tolerance is clearly at risk in this case. However, the question is different in France (as it would be if it were ever posed in the United States).
There is a broad consensus (I was gonna write recognition, and then I was like, gosh darn it, I can’t do that, can I?) in France that “Between the strong and the weak, between the rich and the poor, between the master and the servant, it is liberty which oppresses and law that frees” (Lacordaire). This has functional consequences. Though the intent of lawmakers is as questionable as you say (if not more), many proponents of the law would argue that it is more important to protect those women forced to wear the niqab, than to protect those who willingly wear it.
Why?
First, why not? A decision has to be made and it is not an illegitimate political one.
Second, because the government has a responsibility to those who can’t protect themselves, rather than to those who can. In this case it does equate infringement on civil liberties. Another assumption there is that it’s better to let the government infringe on civil liberties, because citizens exert some control over it, than to let individuals assess what degree of civil liberties their relatives have.
One of the most difficult tasks of democracy is to prioritize amongst human and civil rights. Different countries have established different hierarchies over time. To say that the French law is an attack on civil rights is misguided. But as far as the Dutch one is concerned, it very well might be.

@Marcos: You seem to misunderstand exactly what an informal complaint is. Informal complaints by definition do NOT lead to disciplinary measures, formal reports, or referrals to higher authorities. Just because you do not know the details of what the informal complaint led to (as results are confidential) does not mean that the complaint was resolved in his favor.

@Ethan: At the heart of this article is the concept that the University held someone up as a hero who had been accused of rape. This is beyond whether or not he has been proven “innocent” or “guilty” (which considering that this was handled in an informal complaint was never and is not the issue at hand). This is far more concerned with the fact that the University would perpetuate a heroic image of someone who had been accused of a crime, fully knowing that an informal complaint had been lodged. Regardless, I think also, it’s somewhat fair to say that someone probably wouldn’t file a “secret, non-punitive” informal complaint against an individual unless that person had truthfully felt assaulted.