I look at it this way: I have to assume that, absent evidence to the contrary, all adults are mentally healthy and psychologically competent. If I make any othe

I look at it this way: I have to assume that, absent evidence to the contrary, all adults are mentally healthy and psychologically competent. If I make any other assumption, then I am on the slippery slope to denying them the right to vote, to manage their own affairs, etc. The trick, of course, is being reasonable, just, and as objective as possible as to what constitutes "evidence to the contrary". Actually actively harming another? Seems clear, and courts can decide how best to remove that person from a position from which they can inflict harm. Harming themselves? Much tougher. We've longed struggled with determining the correct moment to intervene and the correct intervention for drugs, excessive drinking, self-cutting, etc. Behaviour inconsistent with social norms? Much, much tougher. Perhaps we need to live and let live a little more? Frankly, I do see the hijab, etc., as symbols of oppression. But it ain't for me to judge someone for what they are wearing or doing, if they aren't harming others, and sometimes not even when they are harming themselves. I may dislike what other competent adults are doing, but my dislike, my distaste, my offense, are worth precisely and totally nothing when questions of regulation arise.