It's a sign to you of oppression, but some women prefer to wear it. I see women in the U.S. wearing it. If women are forced to wear it, that's a problem; that is oppression. It's not the clothing, it's the freedom that matters.
When you bring up exceptions and complexities in social norms in the West, realize that other cultures are just as complex in their rules. We're just not there to see it.
Now implement practical laws.
Some women prefer the hijab, some are forced to wear it. Many of those that are forced to do that also forced to hide the influence, even claim to be freely choosing it. How do we tell the difference? We're not there to see this either, especially when it's purposely hidden.
How do we solve Islamic "Stockholme Syndrome"?
What other explanation could there be for doing something you disagree with? What's the point of freedom if it only applies to things you support?
There is no factual basis. There is no presumption of innocence, due process; it's just your suspicions and speculation.
Yes, you will want freedom and liberty, no choice there; when did 'free country' mean otherwise? A "free country" allows people to be free; when people enter that society still bearing the shackles of their non-free origins they are not yet free.
> If they desire otherwise they must have been forced
must? I didn't say this, I said 'some'. If you want to talk about the issue don't misrepresent my words.
> What's the point of freedom if it only applies to things you support?
When you say you are you talking about me or society?
Again, total tolerance will tolerate intolerance. A free society still has rules and enforced motives. The difference is freedom is the goal, not religiously-defined piety.
> There is no factual basis. There is no presumption of innocence, due process; it's just your suspicions and speculation.
What statement(s) are you referring to here? factual basis for which claim?
Maybe. Maybe people dislike it due to fear, fear of terrorism, and the alien, unknown religion.
But it's also a sign of oppression. I don't fear the religion that oppresses women (I'm not oppressed myself), but that doesn't i don't care. It it "alien"? yes, sort of, but also no - women were oppressed in the west too.
Does this matter? Unless by "alien" you mean either, I reject Islam only because I am not familiar with it, or if I was familiar with it I may tolerate it more I'd have to disagree; Are victims of abuse more tolerant of abuse?
> Women in the west must cover their breasts
Not true, there are places in the west this isn't the case, and if it's changing it can be in either direction. Also the reasoning is usually different, which is why mixed nude beaches still exit even in places you cannot be nude in public, i.e. you can do it with other consenting adults, just not in public where we cannot assume to have the consent of everyone - Does Islam allow this? No.
> ...other serious places women must cover more of their bodies...
And in a nightclub, you might have to dress smart and wear clothes, and why would you wear a bikini in a church?; These aren't public spaces. And since when were religions the voices of reason? You can opt out of any religion in the west, big differences.
> In India
that once (as still) has a strong caste system, acid attacks and terrible sexual violence against women (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Delhi_gang_rape among others)
> And in the West, every woman's clothing is apparently fair game for everyone else's opinions
Uh, yes, freedom of speech/expression; You are also free to ignore those opinions, and have you own. Where is the problem?
> Note how everyone likes to tell women what they can wear.
By everyone, you mean the handful of examples above, most of which are contextual, not restricted to clothing, and not restricted to women. Wearing a mankini to church may also be "frowned upon".