So you assume the veil had a nexus with "rejecting the authority of the state"

A statement such as "The school has no right to determine what my daughter should or should not wear. My religion is the only authority on that question" is typical of arguments of parents with respect to the issue.

This is consistent with a fundamentalist Islamic world view, which we both acknowledge exists in France. It is therefore empirically likely that rejection of state authority is among the motives of parents (though sophisticated parents will avoid advocating such a thing publicly). It is, in any case, logically impossible for you to prove the contrary.

But at least you no longer pretend your ban was about liberating women.

So you assume the veil had a nexus with "rejecting the authority of the state", but of course you have no evidence that in reality this plays a role in a relevant degree.

Eurogreen lives in France and has expressed his support (and even a relative climbdown) for the French pursuit of the secular state.

So arguing from the French point of view, the headscarf will automatically have a nexus with rejecting French authority in their public schools - as long as the community that wishes to wear the headscarf openly connects it to an expression of religion.

I feel that the argumentation on this thread, which is getting to the point of going in circles, suffers from making proper distinctions about considered frameworks. Katrin can rail against ban on headscarves, but for France this ultimately entails a rejection of the French Jacobin groundwork and the secular state. She could question or reject that as well, on grounds of her interpretation of human rights, but tough, that's not for her to change as long as people interpret differently - and people in France (and ET) clearly do. Shouting 'you're wrong about it!' won't help. You get Gallic shrugs in return, and the French are exceptionally skilled at that.