Otherwise, you wouldn't dare to repeat Islamist rhetoric about women donning the hijab/niqab willingly.
Horseshit. You always pull this shit, Zaephon. At some point in the argument you suggest that the person you are arguing against is somehow supporting an Islamist agenda because they fail to agree with you. While you're at it you wanna pull the Nazi card again as well? There's no reason you need to limit that card to poison the well when any criticism of Israel occurs-- the internet is replete with examples of people using the card in all kinds of debates/disputes.
Hijab is the creation of a violent and discriminatory culture in the first place.
Yeah, I know. The sky is blue-- I know that one too.
And violence/oppression isn't always strictly physical.
Oppression-- no. Violence, uh, yeah physical force is actually intrinsic to the definition of violence (unless you are using violence in its alternate sense, meaning "to defame").
There are many women who have to suffer constant emotional abuse, even if they are free from any physical assaults.
Emotional abuse should not necessarily be criminalized. In certain circumstances it should be-- if there is an implicit threat of violence accompanying the emotional abuse for example.
Reading through your posts, I'm very glad that people like you are seldom allowed to seize any power.
And reading through yours it reminds me what elevation of the state and devaluing of personal freedoms has brought my own country to-- the highest incarceration rate in the world, violence, poverty, neurosis, and social alienation. We could stand fewer of your kind in power.
The Far Left is marginalised for a good reason.
Yes, radicals of any ideological persuasion are often marginalized because their ideas represent a threat to the existing social, political and economic order.
Do you think the evangelical Christians in the United States have the natural rights to spread and impose homophobia,
Yes to spreading homophobia-- I oppose any laws that restrict the expression of ideas unless it is an immediate and direct incitement to violence, and you'll have to clarify what you mean by imposing homophobia.
taunt and abuse homosexuals as long as it is accomplished without physical violence,
Depends on what you mean by "abuse". A specific example would be helpful.
harass and marginalise drug-users, teach and spread the ideas of creationism, and harass abortion clinics through "social pressure?" Do you think white supremacists have the natural rights to harass black people, gays, and Mexican immigrants as long as strict physical violence is not reported?
You'll have to define what you mean by "harass" a little better. Again, specific examples would be very helpful. Some forms of harassment rise to the level of an infringement upon rights and should be criminalized, others do not.
Do you think white supremacist employers should be allowed to impose racist symbols on their black employees?
No. But the question is who should stop them, how and under what circumstances. Actually that goes for most of what you just said.
I do not believe the state is the proper vehicle for achieving social justice, and so far as it is used for such, it should do so in the manner least injurous to personal freedom.
Topic: French Hijab Ban Rears it's Head Once Again