Belgium Burqa / Niqab Ban: An issue of holes.

So, Belgium's parliment has voted to ban the wearing of burkas and niqabs. This has resulted in some claiming that the law is anti-muslim, that the point of the law is to discriminate against Muslims, given that the law only outlaws the burka and the niqab and no other facial-covering garment.

The justification for this law, according to Daniel Bacquelaine, is:
Source

"We cannot allow someone to claim the right to look at others without being seen," MP Daniel Bacquelaine of the French-speaking MR liberal-values party told the Associated Press. "It is necessary that the law forbids the wearing of clothes that totally mask and encloses an individual.”

Given that, according to Bacquelaine, the justification is that "we cannot allow someone to claim the right to look at others without being seen", it could be argued that this mentality makes necessary the banning of other sorts of facial coverings. Would not this mentality necessitate the banning of pikachu masks, ski masks, and balaclavas if the point is to ban clothing which covers the face? A universal ban of all facial-covering garments would be necessary were all facial-covering garments the same. But, obviously, this is not the case given that Belgium only banned the Burqa and the Niqab.

So, we now have the following task: Articulate the uniqueness of Burqas and Niqabs as facial-covering garments.

Premises:
Premise 1: Belgium is not full of racist / anti-muslim assholes.
Premise 2: The burqa and niquab are problematic in a unique manner which is not shared by any other manner of facial covering.

To assess what is unique to the burqa and niquab, not shared by other facial coverings, we need a sampling of facial coverings.

Burqa:


Niqab:


Balaclava:


Pikachu Mask:


Ski Mask:


The difference is, I think, obvious:

The burqa and niquab have elongated slits for the eyes.
The Balaclava, Pikachu Mask, and Ski mask have circular holes for the eyes.

Obviously, the problem with which Belgium has an issue is not with Muslims. But rather, the issue is the manner in which elongated slits cover the face as opposed to how circular holes cover the face.

Had Belgium made being Muslim illegal Belgium could have been considered anti-muslim. However, since Belgium made only Burqas and Niqabs illegal, and no other form of facial covering, the issue must be with the unique features of the buraq and niquab: Elongated Slits as opposed to circular holes.

So, the next time someone tries to trot out a "Belgium is anti-Muslim" rant on you as a result of their banning Burqas and Niquabs just remember these two simple words: Elongated Slits


Addendum: The reason for which the law makes Burqas and Niqab illegal rather than just "facial coverings with elogated slits for the eyes" is that only Burqas and Niqabs have elongated slits for the eyes.