As it limits their ability to practise their religion and, in some cases, instructs them on how to do so, I believe it to be an intrusion into the private life of the targeted groups. I find this to be incongruous since the fundamental tenet of laicism is to keep religion and the state apart; in other words, they are meant to be two distinct sectors with distinct responsibilities that do not cross; and yet, this law does just that. Additionally, I think it's presumptuous to assume that just because some individuals wear outward signs of their religion are extremists who want to force their…