In The Netherlands we have a ban on Niqabs, but not on burqas. They are prohibited in public spaces like the hospital or the train station.

The law was first introduced by the PVV an islamophobic racist party run by Geert Wilders. He did this under the guise that it was for safety by putting it in legislation banning more face covering like those used by robbers. Because of this framing the liberal parties, like the ruling VVD, could support under the pretense of national security. Everyone knew that this was not really what this was about, the media even called it the "burqa verbod" meaning burqa ban. But because of plausible deniability and the fact that many of their voters are in favour of these kinds of policies, they supported it.

What happened then (although probably simultaneously) was that the progressive parties started backing it under the pretense of advancing women's rights. They said that women were forced by their family to wear them. This is the case, but some women also choose to wear it them selves, but they refuse to acknowledge this.

Obviously the national security is a dog whistle. The women's rights argument also doesn't hold up. The thought pattern is that if women need to get on the train, they need to stop wearing their niqab. What is then assumed is that these women will thus stop wearing niqabs, but what is the more likely scenario is that they will not stop wearing their niqab, but they will stop using the train. If you are forced by your family or your religion to wear a niqab, then you will probably do everything you can to keep it on and thus avoid publicspaces and thus get more isolated and easier to exploit. Emancipation gets less likely this way instead of more likely. And the women who aren't forced to wear it are now forced to not wear it, which isn't an improvement in my book either.

Take this with a pinch of salt. I'm not muslim myself.