Right off the top, the idea that a woman can say she's "free" when wearing clothing that meets the requirements of some patriarchal religion's idea of female "modesty" is self-evidently absurd. I can see that there can be some freedom felt by covering-up and not having to conform to, say, North American ideas of physical attractiveness. (That's why I personally welcome the onset of colder weather!) Maybe I'm "mans-plaining" things, but if you don't have a choice in the matter, your clothing choices aren't free.
Oh yeah. And I'm one of those "fundamentalist" atheists who thinks religion does more harm than good and I support people like Richard Dawkins when they argue along those lines. (NOT when rational-atheism is used as a cover for sectarian Islamophobia.)
All that having been said, I completely disagree with the Quebec judge who won't let that woman testify in his courtroom until she removes her hijab. Matter of fact. I agree with this entire editorial.
I don't like religion, but freedom of worship is a Charter right. She says she's wearing the hijab for religious reasons. She is not refusing to remove her hijab like someone else refusing to remove sunglasses or a baseball cap. Her head wear does not in any way distract justice from its course. She should be allowed to wear it. The judge is a bigot. End. Of. Story.