I arrived at the train station in Villa Literno in the evening. It was quiet at the station, a great contrast to Rome. My mother was living in Italy at the time, and picked me up from the train station there. We rode to her house as the sun set, the sky filled with smoke from fires burning in the distance - garbage being burned because of a massive sanitation worker's strike.
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
Throughout the article, which is worth a read if only to see the ability of people to self-delude, there is no mention of the fact that wearing the hijab is not a voluntary act for women in many parts of the world. In fact, the only mention of harassment of women in the article is those women who are harassed in the west for wearing one.
The women are encouraged to wear a hijab for a day to "foster global religious tolerance and understanding through hijab awareness."
"Covering up should be a free choice! I may not be Muslim or religious but I support the beauty a hijab can bring to a woman," said one woman in the article, without a shred of irony or apparently any appreciable measure of self-awareness about the laughable false equivalence in what she is saying.
As a libertarian, I have no problem with women wearing hijab if they want to do so, subject to three important limitations:
We aren't defining "wanting to do so" as "doing so because they are afraid they will get beaten by their husbands or by thugs on the street, if they don't". That's not wanting to wear hijab ... that's wanting to not get beaten, an entirely different phenomenon.
They aren't wearing a burqa (complete face covering, leaving only the eyes, or sometimes not even the eyes, exposed) in places where people aren't normally allowed to conceal their faces ... such as banks, or when posing for a drivers license.
They are not on private property in defiance of the wishes of the property owners. That limitation applies to wearing, say, Seahawks jerseys as well. If the owner of the place doesn't permit it, then the owner's rules supersede your own sartorial desires.
And I am waiting for "Muslims Wear Yarmulke" Day, when Muslims wear the Jewish religious accessory to "foster global religious tolerance and understanding through kippah awareness." I feel certain that will happen any day now.