Is public nudity a sign of anything?
Generally speaking, not that I know of. (Though I am sure for some people, public nudity is a "sign" of rebellion or resistance to authority; but that is up to them to decide, not others, much less the state.)
Public nudity is outlawed, I believe, on the principle of protecting the public from sexual (in the sense of erotic) "indecency". I think it would be hard to argue that burqas are "indecent" (at least, not in the same way as public nudity).
I think a case might be made for outlawing burqas on grounds of public safety (as in physical safety) or public security (i.e. against crime). But that would be a different debate altogether. Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.
"Free" countries may also (as you point out) outlaw masks or face coverings on security grounds (facial recognition). I'm not saying I approve of all this, just that your point above about the government making decisions about dress isn't right. Though I don't trust Sarkozy's motives, I don't see anything fundamentally reprehensible about him expressing a view on this subject. If it means he will ram legislation through without debate, without seeking consensus, then I will find that extremely reprehensible.
But I am against the state doing so based on an interpretation by the state of what the (un)dress in question is a "sign" of.
To me personally, it is of little importance whether it is Sarkozy or anyone else advocating such a policy. Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.
