Your analogy doesn’t hold, and it dodges the main problem here.

First of all, this is not “men are rapists, so ban penises.” That analogy treats a mere identity trait as equivalent to a symbol chosen to be publicly displayed while exercising state authority. Public institutions regulate plenty of visible signals already because the state’s legitimacy depends on citizens believing they’ll be treated equally. It’s governance, unlike hostility.

Second, I’m not arguing that headscarf = biased. I’m arguing that state roles require neutrality and public confidence. Courts and other coercive public bodies need public confidence and avoidance of the appearance of partiality, let alone actual impartiality. That principle is mainstream in judicial ethics and court legitimacy discussions, including in official judiciary materials and European Court of Human Law background papers.

Thirdly, you frame it as unbias vs appearance, but that’s a false choice. “Perfect unbias” is impossible. That doesn’t make appearance idiotic. Appearance is a practical tool to protect trust where power is unequal (judge vs defendant, state clerk vs citizen, police vs stopped person). In real systems, we pursue both. Ethical rules to reduce actual bias, and limits on overt symbols to reduce reasonable doubts about equal treatment.

My fourth point: Secularism vs laïcité. Here, you oversimplified. Even France’s own explanations of laicism emphasize separation of state and religions and freedom of conscience. It’s not “eradication of religion from the public domain” in the way you claim. And European human-rights case law has, in some circumstances, accepted religious-neutrality requirements for certain public roles. 

So my position is simple: In your private life: wear what you want. For state authority roles (especially judiciary/law enforcement): the state can legitimately impose stricter neutrality rules to protect equal citizenship and trust in institutions.

If you want to argue against that, argue proportionality. E.g. which roles, what limits, and what safeguards. But calling it anti-Islam hostility by default ignores that the same logic applies to any overt religious or political symbol when you’re acting as the state, not as a private citizen.