How neutral is neutral?

Reading Reading Lolita in Tehran, I was introduced to the complex world of wearing veils in the Muslim culture. Naturally, the controversial issue of its ban in countries such as France and Belgium came up. I asked myself, "How does a country go about expressing a ban on a religious veil neutrally?" So, I went on a quest to answer this question...

As I looked at the different cases for the burqa ban, I noticed two things:
1. Absence of any "signal" words - veil, muslim, etc.
2. Playing the Hero

An article analyzing the 5 arguments of the French burqa ban legislation, claimed that, as was expected, the words, "women, veil, Muslim, or even burqa" were never mentioned in the entire bill. Instead, it was phrased as prohibiting:

"porter une tenue detinee a dissimuler son visage" ("wearing attire designed to hide the face")

While this shows neutrality in the law, there were a slew of exceptions that followed:

"The prohibition described in Article 1 does not apply if the attire is prescribed or authorized by legislative or regulatory dispensation, if it is justified for reasons of health or professional motives, or if it is adopted in the context of athletic practices, festivals, or artistic or traditional performances."

These exceptions indicate the subtle bias within the legislation, and perhaps even a favoritism to Christianity. In fact, the French's main response to the legislation is that they have a similar "dress code" for other religions too, a ban on the Jewish yarmulke and large Christian crosses. Yes, Christian crosses. The main difference is that the yarmulke and the headscarf are both religious obligations, whereas the Christian cross is not an obligation.

However, what was most appealing about the analysis, was the presence of the idea of "imprisonment" in the bill. The idea of imprisonment was portrayed through the bill's explanation of the coercion that the women are put through to wear the veil as well as the suffocating aspects of the veil. For example, the veil was described as a "degrading prison" by one of the legislators, as it objectifies women. At the same time, because the veil covers the entire body, it's seen as hot and uncomfortable, and therefore a health hazard.

By taking a deeper look at the bill's efforts to "free" the women, we see both a superficial understanding of the religion and an attempt to play the hero role in a situation where a hero wasn't called for. But, I'll leave that for you to judge. How neutral is such a ban? What does it reveal about a country?