Useless, discriminatory and against liberty
1. A man doesn't need to wear a mask or a veil to conceal identity. Have you read about Sherlock Holmes? He could perfectly imitate a sailor, an old lady or anyone else without a mask. So skillful criminal will not attract attention by a mask or a hood. He will learn to impersonate.
2. Some people (Muslims?) prefer to wear a veil. Some time before veil wasn't unusual for the West. Nowadays this ban will be a ban against Muslims.
3. And it will be a ban against liberty to wear whatever you want. Will set of sunglasses + mask against sand/dust be considered a full face veil, for instance?
>Nobody should be able to obscure their identity when in public.
It means a surveillance state. I think the opposite: you should be able to obscure your identity as much as you can in public (and in private, too, though you will not need it).
>The full face veil says that women are not a part of society and must be covered up.
Or it says that the woman it shy and modest and prefers to hide her face.
Besides, many people in fiction like the Count of Monte Cristo are also seen wearing a disguise/mask. It doesn't imply that they are not a part of society.
Among the Tuareg of West Africa, women do not traditionally wear the veil, while men do. The men's facial covering most probably relates to protection against the harsh desert sands as well; it is a firmly established tradition. Men begin wearing a veil at age 25 which conceals their entire face excluding their eyes. This veil is never removed, even in front of family members.
>I think it's shameful that tax dollars will paid for the passing of this law, and even more disgraceful that tax dollars will be spent trying to enforce it.
Yes, it's a security theater, and it is putting more pressure on Muslims.