You're talking about a piece of political clothing which is an integral part of the Islamist movement in Europe.
It's also an integral part of many devout Muslim families' lives, with no necessary connection with Islamism or terrorism. It's the same logic which led the victorious English to ban the wearing of the kilt for several decades after the Jacobite Rebellion in the 18th century. The kilt was the traditional daily garb of the Highland clans, but after the Jacobite Rebellion it was interpreted as a purely
political symbol.
The child is typically forced to wear it from an early age and enforcement is achieved through vicious familial and social control.
All families are oppressive and coercive, Sabb. This is both unavoidable and necessary; human culture and a given society's moral values are transmitted from generation to generation by being
imposed on children through the medium of the family unit. If we approve of those values we call it "nurturing", and if we disapprove of those values we call it "oppression".
The hijab is also a symbol of sexualization of young girls and typically reaffirms the notion that non-hijab wearing females are 'loose'. The 'hijab' isn't innocent.
Only in a dialectical sense, Sabb. The hijab is actually an attempt to
de-sexualise young girls, but like every such attempt to suppress something, it dialectically gives rise to its own polar opposite. The Victorians were so prudish that they covered up even the legs
of grand pianos. Paradoxically, that suggests that the Victorian attempt to suppress sexuality actually led to a kind of hyper-sexualisation of Victorian society, where even the glimpse of a piano leg might drive red-blooded males into a frenzy of lust. And, culturally speaking,
nothing is 'innocent', as Roland Barthes pointed out back in the 1970s.
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Marx (Groucho)