"Never lied either. You keep bringing up irrelevant isht like stoning to a garment." Not me. It is a practice in some Countries where the Islamic Law is enforced. So, if the garment is not in Islam, why the women are killed?
You are the one ho in one hand say the ban is islamophobic and the one say the garment is not Islamic.

"You do not know the meaning of the word, and it is misleading to describe it as racist when it does not discriminate based on racial group" Nazi kill the Jews, and it is a religion as you can convert to an other religion. Didn't stop the Nazi to kill the Jews. I give you this one is tricky, as notion of racism is tricky.
In reality, it just make no difference. Religions discriminate, segregate, kill and oppress.

"And by Marxism-Leninism as well." Some did. Well observed.

"I don't think this is the way it is." You are right.

"I don’t believe it needs defending" Hmm, interesting point of view.

"Again I strongly doubt the usage of such vague terms in a law." You might but you are wrong. Read what I wrote. When the Judge in his/her summary, said that juries have to agree "beyond doubts", can you quantify? I can't. Nor I can measure a doubt btw.

"But such orders again should be based on some legally stipulated size otherwise they are arbitrary which again brings us to the neccessity of quoting the law in question." Yes, just go in a internal code of clothing in any company, or schools, and they provide length, colours and other style you are allowed to wear at work. In UK, schools have uniforms, and no ones seems to care too much. Just it seems the religious stipulation has more power in UK than in France. They even different helmets in the Police to make sure than Sikhs, Muslim and others can be recognised immediately, then they complain about discrimination.

"These are VIOLATIONS OF THE LAW which are justified by an emergency" No, there are not. If you kill a kid running after his ball then pretext of the respect of the law for doing it, you will find out it is not a lawful argument.