It really isnt. Its just saying that if you want a dangerous set of ideas to rule your life, you are better off doing it over there if you cant do it peacefully over here. Its very different from totalitarism. There is no prosecution or the sort. Infractors would probably get a fine. No one is gonna take religious people to concentration camps or the sort.
I am also not saying that dialogue should be cut. I am saying that religious people need to evolve their religion into something that has no room for it to be interpretated through violence. Kind of like the old testament gave place to the new testament. Religion needs to clearly demark itself away from the violence and the killing. The logic of "yeah... its a minority everything is alright" will not satisfy people on the long term. What i say is that if that doesnt happen, it is perfectly natural for society to protect themselves from it. As in completely different from "do as we say or else you're a target for extermination". Its more like respect other people's choices and do not force your choices on them or your wallet suffers the consequences. :)
Also, most of us live in democracies, there is no chance of totalitarism unless its elected. If its elected, it represents what the people wish.
I should also point out that this is written with western societies point of view. Really, if you are an immigrant and you are unwilling to adapt to the customs of a country, then its a bit arrogant to think you can force other people on that country to do so.
It could be valid to call that Totalitarian Democracy, e.g. a democracy which majoritarily chooses to limit the freedom of people to choose their own ideas for themselves, to choose what they believe in, to choose what they like to wear, to choose what kind of values they want to instill in their children.
Killing is one form of penalty, fines are another. Kind of like how the conquest of lands in the name of Islam allows for taking a tax if people choose other religions (even non-religion). So what you are frowning down on in religion is basically what you're proposing.
If evolution is to do its work, then it would do so naturally, not by force. Assume for a moment that I thought that your ideas were harmful and conducive to hostility rather than constructive thinking, would it be up to me to choose to censor you? Would I be right to if I were in power?
I say no, it should never be my right. Because in my values, people have the right to their own beliefs, even if we fundamentally disagree. Even if I think your opinion is not evolved, it doesn't give me the right to censor you. Rather, it's my responsibility to do what I can to keep the debate open and do my best to convince you of the validity of my point of view.
The best way to know if what you're proposing is valid is to put yourself in the shoes of the other party. In other words, imagine a world that completely disagreed with your opinion and would fine you for believing it. How would you feel? How would you feel in a world where maybe your friend was penalised for believing a certain way that his government disagreed with, even if that idea was not necessarily wrong just frowned upon, or just unpopular? What do you think of a future where even our thoughts are controlled by the government?
If you believe that parts of Islam are fundamentally contrary to the values which you hold, then explain to your interlocutor where and why, and hope (or pray, whatever is your preference) that the person you are dealing with can understand. Even if/when religion disappears, people will forever fundamentally disagree on things. What will you do then? You will end up with the same problem. You can't just ban ideas and expect evil to go away. You fight evil with good, shine light on the darkness. If a person is ignorant, educate them. If they are confused, clarify your ideas for them. Strive to be clear, strive to be honest, strive to be educated. That is the only weapon against lies and misinformation.
Many people follow islam with an honest heart. If you ban the religion, these people will be disgruntled, and it may make matters worse. When people are honest, generally it is much easier to present to them a truth even if it might disagree with some of the verses in the book they hold dear to.
Also, about the niqab, if you disagree with it for security reasons, then that is a fair consideration in general. Not a perfect one, but a fair one. However, what about the hijab? Are people free to wear it? Should they be? I think so.