Don't really agree with that. But not because I don't agree with Islam, or because I want women to wander around half naked for my pleasure though. Honestly, I couldn't disagree with it on those terms. That would be like disagreeing with a nuns habit or a sari... both of which are fine by me. (One is not an outright deceleration of religious denomination and neither completely obscure ones identity.)
I don't agree, mostly because it smacks too much of the star of David armband the Nazis' used to force Jews to wear. I think you should be a authoritative minister of your faith to go any further than a simple token, like a cross, star, fish, sword, crescent, yin-yang or swastika (the Buddhist form "卍" not the skewed Nazi form) on a pendant.
Also because people aren't allowed to enter public buildings (super-markets, banks, public records buildings and Post Offices et el) wearing a hoodie, balaklava or motor-cycle helmet etc. because it obscures the face from surveillance cameras and makes witness identification so very difficult after a crime has been committed. But wait! You can't prevent anyone doing the exact same thing with a burka in case you offend their religious devotions! (not right)
It doesn't take Einstein to figure out that if you want to rob a bank and not get caught on camera you wear a burka, what-ever your religious beliefs, because nobody can stop you or question you about your motives for doing that.
And who will get the blame when the police can't catch the perpetrator? The poor Muslims again.
: Even though it's highly unlikely that anyone of their faith would exploit such devout attire for any such deviant behaviour, they have created the security flaw which makes it the perfect "thieves tool".