.

Cultural, especially religious, differences are often a source of discord, occasionally leading to major conflict among host communities and immigrants. What to do about it ?

Should host nations practise religious discrimination, outlaw religious practices that are ostentatious religious signs and attire, or allow completely unfettered freedom of religion ?

As I see it, it is illusory to think that governments can control what people think or believe. People can think and believe what they want, and there’s nothing governments can do to stop them.

Religious discrimination is undemocratic. It is out of the question for democratic countries.

So, while it is illusory for governments to try to control people’s thoughts and beliefs, they can, at least, control what may be considered offensive social behaviour such as female genital mutilation, migrants flaunting ostentatious religious signs and attire and laying on the street praying in public.

Having said that, I must confess I find some females quite attractive with their beautiful headscarves. Nevertheless, I much prefer newcomers to the country, to follow the golden rule : “When in Rome, do as the Romans do” - or suffer the consequences !

.

“When in Rome, do as the Romans do”
Banjo Paterson,
yes but not as in Rome's declining years !

Had there been no immigration officers, immigration agents too would find themselves out of job!
Yuyutsu,
You've got that ar$e about. Were there immigration officers with more commitment to their jobs, agents wouldn't be able to do what they do & the shady migrants wouldn't get in !

Here in Victoria, migrants seem to be the least of out worries. The unrepresentative pseudo aboriginal push seems to be able to take over whatever country, ceremonies and customs they desire with the connivence of the new Premier and her government.

David.

Dear Indyvidual,

«Were there immigration officers with more commitment to their jobs,»

It should not be anyone's job to order others where they can or cannot live.

«agents wouldn't be able to do what they do & the shady migrants wouldn't get in !»

If all these officers did something productive instead, like building houses or growing tomatoes, then the migration agents too would find themselves without demand and will have to do the same, so would the migrants who will not be receiving any formal status with welfare attached.

Dear Yuyutsu

Your point about animals is interesting. I accept that the same space can be inhabited simultaneously by different “societies” of creatures without any interaction. “My” garden is also “owned” by wagtails, kookaburras, ravens and skinks. But when their interests conflict, they react. The wagtails try to drive the ravens away in nesting season. No “foreign” kookaburra is allowed in by the resident family. And though the skinks would love to have nothing to do with the ravens and kookaburras, the birds won’t allow it.

If migrants (or any other group, or individuals) choose to live in ways not compatible with other people’s values and beliefs I would not be greatly concerned if they made no demands of, and imposed no disadvantages on, the rest of us.

Unfortunately – as your own experience shows – that is almost impossible in modern nation states predicated on the rights and mutual obligations of citizens and residents. We cannot opt out of Australian “society” if we live here. We pay taxes that fund infrastructure, health care, education etc. If you are badly injured in a vehicle accident, you will mostly likely be taken to a public hospital and receive free emergency treatment. If the community is to pick up the tab, it has the right to insist you take measures that reduce the risk of this happening –e.g. laws requiring use of bike helmets and seatbelts.

It is the same with values. Current controversies over religious groups’ exemptions under anti-discrimination law show that sometimes incompatible value sets (freedom from discrimination and the right to follow one’s religion) cannot be reconciled or exist side by side.

It’s rather long and depressing, but this AFR article by Kenan Malick is a thoughtful summary of how different approaches to diversity in Europe have failed:
http://www.afr.com/policy/how-multiculturalism-went-wrong-and-what-to-do-instead-20150227-13qibp

It concludes:
“An ideal policy would marry multiculturalism's embrace of actual diversity, rather than its tendency to institutionalise differences, and assimilationism's resolve to treat everyone as citizens, rather than its tendency to construct a national identity by characterising certain groups as alien to the nation.”

I think that’s about right