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?
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.