I'd argue if you think about it as a symbol of suppression, then it's problematic that this is allowed to begin with.

That's not how freedom of religion/speech/expression works anywhere that has those things. If it does, then the Israeli flag would've been banned ten times over. If "I don't like something associated with this" (under whatever label you choose) is enough cause to get rid of a civil liberty (such as freedom of expression), then it's trivially easy to use the same logic to get rid of any other civil liberty. Do you want to live in a world where the state can just ban self-expression it doesn't like? Would you want your local far-right party to have this power?

And if people don't want that in their communities, that is not wrong.

But do they have the right to enforce that want violently (which is what this; laws can only be enforced via violence)? Again, you can quite trivially extend this logic from burqas to Muslims, Jews, or what have you. Either these freedoms exist or don't exist, and if they don't exist you don't get to have a democracy anymore.

I don't understand the Iran comment though

It's very easy to justify Iran's hijab bans, and the brutal response thereof, along the same lines as you did. After all, it can be pretty trivially asserted that "what culturally is appropriate" in Iran is hijab. You can't claim the Iranian government is in the wrong but the Portuguese one is in the right; those positions are mutually exclusive unless you specifically add something that favors one side over the other (hint: That thing is racism; these policies are almost always pushed by racists because they're racist and then repackaged for moderates).