The “successful integration” mentioned here in relation to an Andrew Robb comment is in direct opposition to our ridiculous multicultural policy. Further proof that the people supposed to be running this country do not know what they are talking about as they blunder along, dictated to by minorities.

The author also misuses the term “racism” in relation to religion. We should not be listening to people who do no even know their own language.

Further, discussion of feminism, sexism and anything gender based is passé. The author needs to find a new interest.

On your contribution Leigh (1st cab off the rank):

Quote: "[O]ur ridiculous multicultural policy [is] further proof that the people supposed to be running this country do not know what they are talking about as they blunder along, dictated to by minorities." Sounds like you'd prefer the government was dictated to by your sort of minority.

Quote: "The author also misuses the term 'racism' in relation to religion. We should not be listening to people who do no even know their own language." Sounds like you'd prefer your own form of racism. And even your own brand of English.

Quote: "Further, discussion of feminism, sexism and anything gender based is passé. The author needs to find a new interest." Sounds like you're not interested in this topic. Why can't others be interested?

Another bloody post on the problems being caused by Muslims. If only all Australian pollies had the guts to do a Jack Straw. This carry-on is perfect textbook multiculti. It is also why Australians have given it the big thumbs-down. It is time to tell these people that covering up your face is bloody rude, and that refusing to shake hands is also bloody rude. Both might be fine for the sand-dunes of 8th century Arabia, but they have NO place in 21st century Australia. There is nothing more un-Australian than the way these people carry on.

So can we all please stop wasting so much time dissecting them and start TELLING them to shape up or ship out.

Power is an interesting concept and this article brought Luke's theory of a third dimension of power to mind. Lukes argues that consensus is seen to exist if no grievances are identified and therefore no interests are at stake. When a person can see no alternative to a situation that they are in, or if they perceive that the situation is "natural and unchangeable, or because they value it as divinely ordained and beneficial", this is the dominant and most subtle exercise of power. People's priorities and consciousness are shaped by it. The assumption that a lack of grievance is a measure of consensus, is to ignore the possibility of manipulation.

Another feminist academic dinosaur attempting to rationalise the obvious inconsistencies in radical feminist thought.

Cannold's article is full of holes and I suspect that the problem is that the author allows her own attitudes to undermine her critical faculties.

Yet for all of that turgid feminist posturing and patronising name-calling, I get the distinct feeling that Cannold's heart really isn't in it any more.

The tribal wisdom of the Dakota Indians, passed on from one generation to the next, says that when you discover that you are riding a dead horse, the best strategy is to dismount. Ms Cannold, you could take that advice.

Oh, well said Lainie; and cornflower too

I too am an anti-consensorist. Particularly when consensus is enforced by propaganda, the media, or worse no FIO.

What I have detected about this multicultural feminist article is that it is mono-genderous, mono-political, and embraces gender-apartheid.

Did anyone notice?

I bet this article represents either the GFN world view, or probably more likely, the new world order of Feminocracy.

Anyone agree?

I get the impression that Australians are tired of having to foot the bill for the huge social costs of "celebrating diversity" and multiculti.

It is dangerous to assume that 'culture' is a never-changing, static construct - the change may be incremental, but it does happen.

In response to some of the other posts - I find it bewildering that Muslim women wearing the veil have become such a 'battleground' in the name of tolerance . Jack Straw's approach has been to demonise those Muslims who CHOOSE to wear the veil and yet, here and in the UK, having a Muslim name can easily make you the target of surveillance in aid of the 'war on terror' . Ironically, the focus on the 'veil' is itself a 'veiling' action - a way of distracting attention from the continuous promulgation of xenophobia against those who are 'different'.

If Muslim women stopped wearing the veil, would we then be living in a 'multicultural', tolerant society? NO. Its simplistic to suggest as much. Until many of the citizens of this country can take the initiative to 'think for themselves' and not swallow the poorly-researched spin of politicians, I don't think banning basically an item of clothing, is going to change very much.

I suppose the response would be that shedding the veil is only one step, the next is understanding Australian 'values', something that I, as a 20+ year resident, am unsure of - after all, aren't we the nation that is still to fully reconcile with the original custodians of this land? Where the word 'sorry' is unmentionable?

So, for those who have more recently arrived in Asutralia, the attitude is either 'shape up or ship out', and leave behind your 'culture' . This is in direct contrast to those who migrated here a few generations before, and were able to import their 'culture' wholesale, and then force it upon the Indigenous peoples of this land, an imposition that continues today.

For every example that Leslie provided of a woman being subjugated by culture, there are also many inspiring examples of women embracing and changing their culture as well. I place myself in that camp.

Stop talking 'about' us. Talk to us.

FrankGol,
I agree with you. This topic is hardly passé- because there is still no acceptable solution for this obvious problem. If people stop discussing it altogether no new ideas or views will be generated.

Neocommie
It is too easy to ‘solve’ such a big problem by just saying: “…start TELLING them to shape up or ship out.” This is, so it seems from reading some posts on multi-culturalism, almost every anti-multicultural’s fantasy.

There are a few so called Christian sects or cults in Australia, like Exclusive Brethren, which have dress codes for women and forbid contraception and do in no way treat women equally to men.
While you could (theoretically) tell Middle Eastern people to “shape up or ship out” you cannot deport these other (Christian) religious cults. Where would you deport them to- hell?
In fact, these so-called sects and cults are receiving much financial help from our own government- e.g. tax exemptions, other kinds of support including funding for their own schools. We are footing the bill for this as well!

Cornflower,
I think that this issue is hardly ‘radical’.
If you find holes in the article, which I am sure there are, you could point them out; it would make interesting conversation.

Amrita,
Excellent post. You are right to say that there are inspiring women worth mentioning as well. Perhaps much can be learnt from those women and they might be seen as a good role model by younger girls. I'd love to know what you have done:)

I also think that there are double standards.
The veil is such a big issue with many non-islamic white Australians- it amazes me that some people who are so intolerant of the veil or hijab have their faces and other bodyparts pierced or their hair dyed in pink and purple streaks, walk around in pants so low that half their undies are showing or don’t even think of criticising a nun’s habit or a priest’s tabard (if it’s called that?) but pick on the veil of muslima’s.
Why is 'their' image accepted and not another?

To continue to try to find an answer to the question whether multiculturalism can co-exist with any Western liberal values, is an exercise in cognitive futility. The empirical evidence is, that multiculturalism, especially the variant that does no have any relation to Western values, is completely incompatible with the latter.

See:"Multiculturalism:How a Pet Idea Became a Dinosaur"--http://www.con.observationdeck.org

amrita makes a very telling point when she says, "Stop talking 'about' us. Talk to us."

But amrita, that is the way of Western feminists who talk at women and about women, and never to women.

It might suit the careers of Western feminists to typecast women as foolish, vulnerable and weak and to by so doing seek to destabilise and ‘disempower’, but it certainly does not assist Western women.

For years Western feminists have scorned the veil as evidence of male domination in Islamic culture. That was always wrong but they never stopped to ask or understand the culture.

If I were a Muslim woman I would wear the veil as a symbol of my rejection of the cultural imperialism and decadence represented by Western feminists.

Speaking more broadly, it is a very great pity that Australians generally never made a stand against the cultural imperialism first from Great Britain (the colonial cringe) and presently the cultural imperialism from the United States.

It is appropriate that middle-Eastern and Eastern women form and pursue their own ideas of feminism (and femininity, which to their credit they are determined not to lose). The 'feminism' promoted by Western feminist academics trashed many of the traditions and institutions that were valued by women. Feminists like Greer are like cows in a china shop as far as sensitivity and commonsense are concerned.

I think that Muslim women should be applauded for taking time to contemplate what they hold dear to them, their crucial role in society and the power they have to change things. It is a case of keeping the good and not throwing the baby out with the bath water (although many Western feminists did not get to have the baby either).

I don’t think Muslim women have much to learn from Western feminists and it is unfortunate that Western feminists have become so isolated in their own cultures.

I think this debate has a bit more to it than just a veil. If someone wants to dress from head-to-foot then fine. That's what freedom is.

The main issue is should a girl be forced by the cultural beliefs of her parents and multicultural society to partake in an action in which she doesn't want to. For example, arranged marriage. To refuse would mean alienation, not just from her community, but her family.

Society at large may create avenues for young women to avoid such traditions by establishing safe havens, but society cannot necessarily mend the damage to relationships with family and community.

Of course, as Australians we would all agree that the young girl has the right to refuse to participate in these types of traditions, but we cannot force the families and communities to accept these rejections - or can we?

Perhaps it is time to go back to square one and clearly explain exactly what are the rules and regulations for living in Australian society.
Then the would be immigrant could decide, "Yes, I can live with that" or "No,I cannot live with that."
It must be made crystal clear that there are to be no arguments about it, no fiddling with the edges, you obey Australian law or you go.
It is that simple.

Loved the article, Leslie, you point out many of the subtleties of power relationships beautifully and with great respect and sensitivity.
The usual suspects on this blog have responded with knee jerk insults about feminists and generally missed the point entirely, except for one or two.
It is no good pointing out that arranged marriage or female genital mutilation is "cultural' and so okay. I daresay apartheid was 'cultural" for the Boers in South Africa, that didn't make it right. It was cultural for Germans to be anti-semitic, still didn't make it okay. Human rights, it seems to me, cannot be negotiable. If we wouldn't accept the practice occurring with one gender then it probably isn't okay for it to occur for the other. I can't think of any justification for saying a woman's evidence should be worth less than a mans, for example.
The hardest human rights battle is that of women. Black people, when they fight for their rights, generally battle white people, Palestinians battle Jews, Irish catholics battle Irish protestants, workers battle bosses. Women must fight for their rights against their husbands, their brothers, their fathers and, worst of all, their sons. Perhaps that is why so many women are prepared to be treated as lesser (served last, prevented from voting, driving, attending school, going to sports matches (Iran), or participating in sport) rather than confront the men they love.

Has any thought been given to two possibilities: Muslim women cover up because they are ugly or, Muslim women cover up because they are not ugly and their men doubt their ability to hang on to them.

A bit silly? Yes. But then so is the idea of normal people covering themselves up beyond the requirements of society standards. Still, I suppose if Muslim women want to look strange in a liberal and tolerant society, that's their problem. I will continue to regard them with great suspicion (how much plastic explosive could they fit under the voluminous garb) and avoid them at all costs.

And, how many beat coppers could Leigh pass with nothing but his eyes showing, with a big baggy overcoat on?

I should first say that I also enjoyed the article very much - thanks Dr Cannold.

I asked my husband what he thinks about this clash of feminism and multiculturalism. He tells me that it is just like telling heterosexual couples that they should not marry because there are conflicts between men and women. He also tells me that we should get together and talk. And having listened to him, I think that I agree.

Perhaps while some complain about the lack of equality between the sexes in non-Western cultures, we should remember that women in developed countries also earn less than men for the same work, also suffer from constraints and violence, and are also under-represented in Parliament. The list could be long but I pass. None of it would be good enough a reason for me to drop a commitment to feminism or multiculturalism.

Leigh asks: "Has any thought been given to two possibilities: Muslim women cover up because they are ugly or, Muslim women cover up because they are not ugly and their men doubt their ability to hang on to them."

I ask: "Has any thought been given to two other possibilities: Leigh posts obnoxious messages because he is psychologically inadequate or, Leigh posts obnoxious messages because he is not psychologically inadequate and afraid of people who are different to him?"

A bit silly? Yes. But then so is the idea of people making written fools of themselves beyond the requirements of OLO standards. Still, I suppose if Leigh wants to post fear and hatred in a liberal and tolerant society, that's his problem. I will continue to regard him with great suspicion (how much prejudice can he fit under his voluminous posts) and avoid reading him at all costs.

Well said, Penelope and FrankGol.

Cheers

Amrita

Hilarious. Thanks Leslie for the very sensitive and provocative article, to the 'usual suspects' for their predictable responses, and especially to the last three commentators.

I saw this article when it first appeared in the SMH but I am sorry that I didn't read it as deeply as I should have. I was put off by the mention of Roman Catholicism and Anglicanism in the same breath as female circumcision.

Dr Carnold makes some important points - the main ones to me being the right of exit - after all, you can usually exit from a particular faith group if you want to in Western cultures without too many other ruptures (excepting of course if you are a member of one of those particular groups such as the Exclusive Brethren). It is much harder to exit when you have been kept isolated from the host culture and have been told that the women in the host culture are all sluts, whores and are asking to be raped by their conduct.

The most important problem is that feminism, apart from attempting to cross cultures, does not privilege any particular sub group within society, excepting for the female gender as a whole, and then both as a group and in respect to individuals within that group.

Multiculturalism is about privileging groups over individuals, otherwise it would be known as multi-individualism rather than multiculturalism.

Women, as a group cannot separate themselves from the rest of society the same way that cultural groups can. Women are already with us, they have rightful claims and grievances. They did not seek to inject themselves into the host society, instead they form part of the host society.

Multiculturalism has much to be afraid of from feminism, after all, feminists are in the ideal situation to break down cultural barriers and bring women under the protection of the host culture from under the respression of their cultural groups.

Okin has some fearsome rivals--Judith Jarvis Thomson, Mary
Warnock, Martha Nussbaum and Elizabeth Anscombe, for example. I don't think your assertion of Okin's pre-eminence is arguable.

The moral situation is more complex than you suppose--or than you can deal with in the space available. The rights to self determination, to freedom from oppression and to bodlily integrity cleary trump rights to cultural identity. The major reason for the arguments about human rights since the second world war has been to try and provide a philosophical basis and a basis in interenational law for the intervention in cultures, demanding change. What applies between countries also applies between cultural groups within a country.

Similar points can and have been made about the limits of parents' rights.

But to determine that one right trumps another is not the end of the matter. Forcing major change in a culture carries serious consequences. We should surely then ask how the superior right can be afforded with the least transgression of the lesser one; and whether compensation is required as well.

The womens liberationists who are responsible for a lot of the support for multiculturalism are now waking up decades too late of the dangers it may present to their own culture of Western freedom. Cant say they weren’t warned that it was a dangerous social experiment but as usual they thought they had all the answers.

We define ourselves by our clothes . When children wear school uniforms it tells the world what schools they go to.. When Muslims wear their headgear they proclaim that they belong to a certain tribe. They proclaim a sort of apartheid or segregation with their mode of dress. That is what Australians instinctively dislike, this them and us mode of dress.
It also sends a signal to men that the women are muslim and so it ensures they are only approached by muslim men. A very effective way of ensuring that their tribal blood is not contaminated by other races. True whether they admit to it or not.

Yes religions are tribes,when they don’t marry outside of their religion and they are just as guilty of racism against other groups who are not of their tribe.

Why would God be offended by the hair on a womans head . Covering their pubic hair I I can understand. If you believe that Allah created women then why would he be offended by the sight of what he created?.

But I, like most Australians don’t give two hoots about what muslims believe in. What I do care about is their creating of a big separate tribe because that is a direct threat to the freedom of my daughters if they start to vote muslim priests into parliament and they get the numbers to demand that my daughters have to live under Shari law. My sons also will have to wear beards and stick their bum up in the air and pray 5 times a day.
.

Every weekday I go into St Georges Terrace here in Perth I am confronted with humans of the female gender dressed in black attire.Thirty or so years ago the only females so attired were widows of Mediterranean origin. To what ideology are these women conforming to? Are these examples of "enlightenment" so cowed so as not to express their own induviduality. Yet when they enter into a contract of marriage they participate in costumes of the theatre of the absurd.

Cannold sees multicultural feminism as standing in the way of a homogonous feminist culture.

“But the right to escape a community that is oppressive is not enough. Gender-discriminatory cultures and religions have a profound impact on women's beliefs about their legitimate entitlements in this life.”

“As a consequence, asserts Okin, where multicultural practices eviscerate the self-esteem necessary for girls and women to develop their own values and plans, the State is well within its bounds to outlaw them.”

How refreshing to read that culture is the new enemy. From this vantage, one is tempted to expose one’s mangina and romp into the fracas.

"Every weekday I go into St Georges Terrace here in Perth I am confronted with humans of the female gender dressed in black attire.Thirty or so years ago the only females so attired were widows of Mediterranean origin. To what ideology are these women conforming to?"

Melbournian fashion?

I am a freedom of choice person in regards to personal dress. But a clear photo of my face is on both my driving license and passport. It legally has to be there for identification purposes. In a society which needs to be increasingly concerned with both personal, national and international safety, positive identification is essential.

If I joined the Cult of Zorro and claimed that I needed to wear a mask at all times, I doubt if a photo of my covered face would be acceptable on official documents. And, despite my protests, I'm sure I would be obliged to show, when appropriate, that the person depicted on my official photos is really me. What's the difference?

The Dutch govt has produced a film showing prospective migrants that a number of things are acceptable in Holland, whether the prospective newcomers like it or not. This film includes homosexuality and beach nudity [amongst other things]. There's really no reason why Australia could not do something similar and include the need for positive identification. After all, we already [officially] ban such things as polygamy, under-age marriage and female genital mutilation, which some people would see as an infringement on their personal liberty.

Loved the article, Leslie, you point out many of the hypocrisies of the feminist left's own rhetoric. And naturally, the usual suspects on this blog have responded with their knee jerk catch cries of patriarchal conspiracy, female victimisation and oppression.

YO!

LAUGH-OUT-LOUD!

I do so love this topic. It brought a big smile to my face back in January 2004 when I first read Pamela Bone's pre-emptive strike against the burqa in The Age. I realised that it was a massive conundrum for both feminists and multiculturalists alike - who, of course, mostly swear allegiance to the same side of politics. It's a problem of their own making and it exists only within their own house. Ever since then, I've been sitting back enjoying the fireworks and the fun of it all.

There's an old nautical saying of never doing "something" into the wind, because it will blow back all over you, and here's the big diversity issue that HAS blown back all over them.

You see the point about diversity is that it's just that, diverse. The principle applied to society is supposed to establish tolerance of other people's differences. But for people like Cannold, there are two kinds of diversity. Diversity they agree with and diversity they don't agree with. There in lies their hypocrisy.

But isn't all diversity just diversity?

No, not for feminists. For whilst they champion diversity as a "human right", when that particular diversity interferes with their political view of the right kind of diversity, they're faced with a dilemma. As an ethicist, Cannold is faced with having to justify one set of values - diversity - with her own opposite set of values - feminism - which of course is anything but tolerant of diversity.

People who are philosophically challenged by their own contradictions of diversity truly don't understand diversity. They only want conformity to a predetermined, politically correct culture, which they conveniently label as diversity to justify to themselves that they occupy the moral high ground. They hope you'll believe it too.

Maximus, it is hardly news that rights conflict in some situations. After all, all moral principles have exceptions. That does nothing to show that the principles are mistaken.

Support for multiculturalism is generally derived from views about the the relation between individuals' understanding of their identity and the institutions within which they operate. If you destroy the institution, you prevent a person from being what they think of themselves as being--a father, a doctor, a believer and so on. Stripped of their roles, people become dislocated.

It is argued, then, that the preservation of the most important roles is a requirement for people living a worthwhile life, and thus it is a human right.

Set against it is the view that people are entitled to choose their roles and to change their institutions. And further, that if institutions don't change, they can become harmful. Christians who refuse to accept what the nineteenth century discovered, that the Bible can be comprehensively wrong, try and maintain the institutions of marriage as they once were (dominant male, for example, and no homosexual unions) and do a good deal of harm. Some practices, like female infabulation, have no redeeming features.

This argument, if it is sound, sets limits to cultural rights. It does not show that they are nonsense. Arguments against imposing uniformity across the board, still apply.

Thank you ozbib for a most eloquent and reasoned response.

But let me tell you, I'm still laughing.

I don't have any problems with genuine diversity. I don't have a fixed perception of how everybody else has to live their lives. Live and let live is my approach. I don't paint myself into corners of isms. I don't advocate to change laws to make everybody live their lives to suit me and my beliefs.

It is going to be very interesting to watch how these so-called diversity proponents extract themselves from this corner without getting paint all over the place.

And I'm curious to see who wins - the burqa or the bikini? A lovely dichotomy I must credit Pammy Bone for coming up with. But frankly I couldn't care less. Neither one troubles me. Some women belong in one and some in the other. Most settle for something in between.

Multiculturalism's just a blanket term for many things. Ethnic diversity's a fact. We have been 'multicultural' since at least 1788. They might've all come from England but they weren't all English. Feminism's another blanket term.

Are feminism and multiculturalism compatable? Depends on which specific parts of the isms you're discussing. There are clashes between modern secular society and traditional codes of conduct. This was/is true of Western European societies and their colonial offspring as it/was of anywhere else. Modern societies tend to be democratic advocating equality at least in legal terms for all citizens regardless of gender. A person moving from a traditional (Holocene) background will have trouble dealing with this.

How to resolve it? Time and clear communication. If you migrate to a country you must deal within the mores of that society. The vogue for revisionism notwithstanding, the law must make a decision. Either women are free or they aren't. And if they are, they are regardless of ethnicity. Within that steely cage however there is room for flexibility and choice. If a muslim woman or girl wears a headress in confirmity with her religion's views on morality that should not be a problem. Clitoredectimy on the otherhand is completely unacceptable. Where to draw the line? Easy, you just draw it where a person's liberty is at stake. It's not cultural imperialism it's just ethical management within the boundaries of national sovereignty.

By the way 'neocommie' what is this 'huge' cost of celebrating diversity? Maybe we should make them all go home. Wouldn't eating out be a real experience then?

Leslie C,

PART I

You note there is a problem in appealing to rights when criticising aspects of a culture or religion when those same rights include the freedom of culture and religion.

You say: “The dilemma cannot be solved by a simple appeal to rights … because the right to pursue one's own conception of the good life free from discrimination on the grounds of culture and of gender are important moral rights”

But insofar as a particular culture’s or religion’s conception of the ‘good life’ is itself in violation of the very same right upon which it, when in the minority, justifies its right to be tolerated and not discriminated against, then it is not inconsistent in the least to demand that such a culture or religion jettison its intolerant and discriminatory doctrines, or indeed, if these go to the core of its philosophy, then to outlaw that culture or religion in its entirety, e.g. Nazism.

If there is a “dilemma” here, then why didn’t it seem to bother anyone when criticising Christian doctrine over the years, or even criticising various predominantly Anglo ‘sub’ cultures, e.g. “Hansonites”? Nobody ever found themselves waylaid in postmodernist debates on cultural solipsism and interpretation over these groups.

Is this because in such cases the parties involved share a common history? If so, how young does that history have to be before we become reluctant to criticise one another?

You note as “obvious but often overlooked,” as “something to keep in mind,” the point that “minority cultural and religious groups are not homogeneous, but comprise less and more powerful members”.

But if this is not already in everyone's mind, it can’t be because “the leaders of such groups may brand [such criticism] as culturally imperialist” (i.e. play the race card and make us feel guilty), since we’d never just stand by and let any old bunch of ultra-conservative, traditionalist, identity politics get away with that defence!

It could only be because the “Other” is involved. But then, wouldn’t our reluctant queasiness over criticising the Other imply, ultimately, that we consider them ....

PART II

.... less WORTHY of criticism, i.e. as less HUMAN? But what else makes us human other than our capacity for, and willingness to be subjected to, criticism? Without this we are little more than machines or beasts.

(I think the whole “race debate” has been upside down! The true racists, albeit tacitly, have forever been the postmodernists of the middle class left)

On this dilemma of rights you ask: “Which should trump the other when they conflict?”

Surely the one that places as highest, as more fundamental, the very grounds upon which one can justify that one ought not discriminate against people on the basis of their culture, gender, sex, religion, etc. The one that places the HUMANITY in people above their ETHNICITY or RELIGION or any other phenomena of a CUSTOMARY nature, as opposed to a genuinely ETHICAL one. That is, the one that justifiably reaches common ground.

Philosophers like Kant, Heidegger, Habermas, all critical of theism, have made excellent arguments for a universal ground all humans share in common, and which acts as a source of universal norms, the most fundamental perhaps being the capacity for criticism.

On a related note, there's a great paper in Cultural Anthropology that focuses on the relationship between female sexuality and cultural preservation in the Indian diaspora in the US, by anthropologist Sunaina Maira (1999).

Maira focuses on a study of Indian migrants in the US which in “the dichotomy of ‘Indian’ verses ‘American’ becomes a gendered and sexualised contrast”.

“The chastity of daughters becomes emblematic not just of the family’s reputation but also, in the context of the diaspora, of the purity of tradition and ethnic identity, a defence against the promiscuity of ‘American influences’," where "the traditional Indian view of migration [is] as a ‘polluting enterprise'"

“there is a SEXUALISING of ethnic identities that imbues them with a moral force, enabling the enforcement of notions of cultural purity in the second generation. The language of sexuality is inserted into the rhetoric of ethnic authenticity to uphold the dichotomy of identity choices”

You raise very significant questions Leslie

...annnnnd...here we have the problem :)

"The one that places the HUMANITY in people above their ETHNICITY or RELIGION or any other phenomena of a CUSTOMARY nature, as opposed to a genuinely ETHICAL one. That is, the one that justifiably reaches common ground."

Key word "Humanity".

The author is suggesting that there is some definition of 'humanity' out there for us all to pluck off a tree and taste the same nice flavor.

Unnnfortunately, a 'human' cannot be separated from their ethnicity and culture. It is from these things they have their 'human' identity.

Using words such as 'their humanity' is code for the Author actually DEFINING 'humanity' in a manner which is quite foreign and threatening to those who's identity is derived FROM their culture etc.

Shock horror, this applies as much to 'WHITE ANGLO' people as it does to black indigenous, and all shades of color in our migrants.

The time bomb assumption is that we white anglo folks don't HAVE a culture, or that we might feel quite comfortable with pressures to dilute that culture. *WRONG* !

In a way its quite ironic. Feminists probably dislike the idea of discriminatory immigration policies, but if they discriminate against those who keep women in subservient, inferior social positions...woooooo now that creates a....DILEMNA :)

I advocate VERY discriminatory immigration policies and could not give 2 hoots about being called 'racist' :) Because my goal is social, cultural and political cohesian not racial purity. I'm on about VALUES purity.

That is where the 'left/feminist' position becomes unstuck. They hate the idea of discrimination but also hate the outcome which is he migration of many people who don't share their view and are strongly linked to deeeeeep cultural and ethnic histories which re-inforce their discriminatory views about the position of women.

The defense rests your honor, no further questions.

As a feminist and a believer in diversity, I have no problem with people from all sorts of backgrounds coming here. I also have no problem with women dressing any way they freely choose to - in next to nothing or covered from head to foot. As i said in an earlier post, if its appropriate for one gender then its probably appropriate for the other, and we don't waste acres of cyber-ink arguing over what blokes should wear, do we? The emphasis here on freely choosing to, not being compelled to ( or compelled not to by the self righteous on the other side either) by self proclaimed vice police, either in their family or wider social group.
Migrants to this country may believe whatever they like, as far as I'm concerned, as can extremists in our own culture like George Pell and Philip Jensen ( and, let me tell you, their attitudes to women and gay people seem to me extreme). The only thing I ask is that they allow me and people who think differently from them to speak, act,dress the way we want to too. If I offend them, or they offend me ( which happens often), lets keep our mouths shut about it, shall we, or if we must speak, lets do it in a spirit of generosity. There are far worse things than being offended, after all.
Feeling offended by something may in fact be a great learning experience and a vital part of the rich tapestry of life.

Maximus

The real joke is that the Western feminists strode forth to lead and dominate the Eastern feminists.

In so doing not only did the (Western Feminist) emperor prove to have no clothes but the (assumed) grateful apprentices had the hide to bite the hands that were trying to feed them.

Hence the ungraceful backflips that are occurring and the agonies of Dr Cannold and other feminist academics in trying to rationalise what went wrong and trying to find some middle ground.

Hehe, imagine the chagrin of the radical feminist gurus and soothsayers at being left behind like a jilted bride. I guess it is not only men who let women down.

Meanwhile the rest of us are busily getting on with all of the good things of life.

The veils, particularly the letter-box head ones, are an unwelcome intrusion into Australian life. they are nothing more than a rejection of Australian values, and are a trojan horse for dhimmitude. We need to applaud Australian leaders who follow Jack Straw's excellent example.

To those women who are tripping over themselves with garbage about "choice" etc. you are indulging in the feminism of fools.

Why must the haters of feminism - in all its many incarnations - so often resort to insults and name calling? Is it because the argument that women are lesser creatures pre-destined to live the sorts of lives others decide they should live is rather hard to sustain?
Life is not simple, it isn't made up of right and wrong, black and white, to veil or not to veil. It is made up of complex, overlapping themes, influences and currents. Thoughtful people try to tease out these knotty problems and expose them to examination. Less thoughtful ones sling insults.
No-one is wholly right or wholly wrong, that's why allowing people to follow the dictates of their own heart and conscience is often a wise strategy. Humility is all about recognising that you (feminist, christian, muslim, rightist, leftist, man, woman, gay, straight, worker or boss) do not have all the answers or know just the right way to live. Feminism - despite those who willfully misrepresent it - has always been about women choosing their own destiny. And, in my view, that means they can wear any damn thing they please and do (or not do) any damn job they want and make their own mistakes, gain their own wisdom and make their own way. What, I ask, is so offensive about that?

Ena, thank you for your refreshing commonsense. This debate had become debased and silly.

I don't have a problem with what people choose to wear. As far as I am concerned, a burka is no more inappropriate on a day of 40 degree heat than a mans' suit and tie. And no more strange looking than a Catholic priest's outfit. And no more ludicrous than a judge's wig.

But, as I said before, in a world which is of necessity becoming more and more concerned with safety, a face needs to be seen, at least sometimes, for security and identification purposes.

I'll draw an analogy. Most of us, at some times in our lives, need to have full body medical examinations and/or procedures involving parts of our bodies which are not usually on public view. Some people are so traumatised by just the thought of this that they delay or avoid examinations and/or procedures and maybe die as a result. Others find the thought of others seeing their bodies so traumatic that this is more stressful to them than all the other far more significant aspects of their medical condition combined.

The obvious answer to this predicament is to be comfortable with your own body and be prepared to expose it [maybe reluctantly, but that's OK], if the necessity arises.

The same applies to a face. A recognisable full face photo has to be part of both driving licenses and passports. And sometimes the photo has to be verified as a true likeness of the person holding that document. If the simple act of showing one's face is so traumatic that it cannot be contemplated, then the owner of that face has a problem. And it should be THEIR problem, not Australia's.

Incidentally, what do such women [and I realise it's not just the womens' fault] do when they need medical treatment? Surely the Australian taxpayers don't have to pay extra for special services [eg only same-sex health professionals], when this is not required for the rest of us.

Ena,
If you think that apartheid was wrong in South Africa why do you condone the practicing of Tribal Aparthied by the Muslims in this country. They are a religious tribe because except for a few exceptions they dont marry outside of their religion.

There is a limit to tolerance.

Should the Jews be offended if a group of people decided to walk around Melbourne in Nazi Uniforms. After all the people wearing the uniform arent the actual people who threatened the extermination of the Jews.
Should I as a westerner be tolerant of people who walk around this country in the uniform (the hijab)of people who threaten the existence of my children(kill the Infidel)although they are not the people doing the threatening.

Does respect for tribal cultures and respect for females MIX?

Tribes are groups of people who have lived together for some time. There are tribes fighting tribes in Iraq. There are tribes fighting tribes in America. Tribes as tribes have nothing to do with respect for females.

From Bob Herbert, "Why Aren't We Shocked?":

"Who needs a brain when you have these?" -- message on an Abercrombie & Fitch T-shirt for young women

In the recent shootings at an Amish schoolhouse in rural Pennsylvania and a large public high school in Colorado, the killers went out of their way to separate the girls from the boys, and then deliberately attacked only the girls....

In the widespread coverage that followed these crimes, very little was made of the fact that only girls were targeted. Imagine if a gunman had gone into a school, separated the kids up on the basis of race or religion, and then shot only the black kids. Or only the white kids. Or only the Jews.

There would have been thunderous outrage...There would have been calls for action and reflection. And the attack would have been seen for what it really was: a hate crime.

None of that occurred because these were just girls, and we have become so accustomed to living in a society saturated with misogyny....

The disrespectful, degrading, contemptuous treatment of women is so pervasive and so mainstream that it has just about lost its ability to shock. Guys at sporting events and other public venues have shown no qualms about raising an insistent chant to nearby women to show their breasts....

...Staggering amounts of violence are unleashed on women...

A girl or woman is sexually assaulted every couple of minutes or so in the U.S. The number of seriously battered wives and girlfriends is far beyond the ability of any agency to count.

...the relentless violence against women and girls is linked at its core to the wider society's casual willingness to dehumanize women and girls, to see them first and foremost as sexual vessels...and never, ever as the equals of men....

BOAZ_david,

I agree that “a 'human' cannot be separated from their ethnicity and culture,” and that one’s “identity is derived FROM their culture”. But I disagree that “It is from these things they have their 'human' identity”.

I do not, as you suggest, believe “that there is some definition of 'humanity' out there for us all”, but I do believe that regardless of what historical cultural meaning system enculturates us, that there are aspects about us all we share in common and for which the term “human” suits just as good as any other might.

Ask yourself (1) whether it is any less difficult to ‘define’ one’s identity in a cultural sense, and (2) what makes us, all of us, different from every other creature on earth.

I’m confident you’ll agree that something we all share in common is our specific communicative capacity, and the fact that our relationship toward death is such that we are the only creatures on earth who bury the dead and have a ‘cult of graves’.

There are universal ethical implications in this sociolinguistic communicative capacity, and in this relationship to death: selfhood, the right to be heard, the duty to listen. We don’t need an immortal soul for such things.

I couldn’t care less what one’s conception of the ‘good life’ is, so long as it is first and foremost grounded in such ‘human’ traits, rather than particular ‘cultural’ traits such as a national identity, or one’s being Muslim or Jewish, or Sunni or Shia.

If we let our particular customs be the ultimate standard and measure of ‘good’ or ‘bad’, then surely we’ll be in a state of war forever. But if we let what we all share in common be the ultimate standard and measure of ‘good’ and ‘bad’, then all of our particular, conflicting ‘customary’ standards, will then be subject to a more universal standard.

Jesus aspired to such standards, one’s that did not discriminate on the basis of peoples cultural differences, etc. But in claiming that a transcendent God exists he unjustifiably claimed there is an objective purpose in life.

Here, Here FrankGol (Regarding Leigh posts)- Fantastically said. An astounding applause from over here.

Well, it takes one to know one.

Ena
You say that women in this country can wear any damm thing they like. Does that mean that some of them could dress up like the Klux Klux clan and walk freely around the streets. After all its only clothes and clothes dont cause any harm according to you. No matter that they wear the uniform of people who want the extermination of black people.
Why should I tolerate the wearing of the Hijab when it symbolises the same thing for me as the robes of the Klux Klux Clan symbolise for the black people.

If I saw someone dressed in Ku Klux Klan garb, I'm afraid I would assume they were going to a fancy dress party.
You need to understand Sharkfin, that the white sheets of the KKK were only worn when the members were about to do something illegal and wished to disguise themselves. The hijab and the burkha are worn all the time, not as disguises to hide from the police, so the two things are not the same. The members of the KKK generally dressed in normal western clothing when they were going about their normal business, you know- not lynching blacks.
If you are going to draw analogies, its a good idea to make them appropriate.
Wearers of the veil wish to make public their religious beliefs, wearers of the KKK costume wished to keep secret their association with a racist and illegal gang. Do you see the difference?

Regarding the Burkha

I believe we as a nation should set limits to the extent religious and cultural dress can conflict with other values, such as eye to eye contact, social interaction etc.

There is no reason whatsoever (except that it might annoy a small minority of people) why we cannot decide ourselves what those limits are.

Any cultural attire or religious symbol which links back to ideas or behaviour which are cruel, inhumane or barbaric, should not be allowed by law.

Swastika's are technically 'legal' (correct me someone if I'm wrong) but they are also repulsive due to the historical associations of Genocide.

In the Migration Act, Public Interest Criteria 4001 (as it relates to Section 501 of the Migration Act 1958) and 4003 of the Migration Regulations require particular consideration, gives the Minister the discretion to decide what is or not in the public interest as follows:

"acting in a way likely to be insensitive in a multicultural society, eg. advocating within particular ethnic groups the adoption of political, social or religious values well outside those acceptable to Australian society"

I put it to all of us, that a Burkha is not acceptable on the following grounds.

They are symbolic of a number of specific acts which degrade women and Jews in particular. How ?

They symbolize

a) The Genocide of Jews of the Banu Qurayza tribe by MOhammed
b) They symbolize his taking of (among others) the wife of a man he had tortured, after killing her husband. (Kinana, Jewish chief at Khaibar)
c) They symbolize the brutality of the Taliban in more recent history.

I suggest that only 'mild' symbols of Islam are acceptable in the Australian cultural landscape. Hijab would be ok, but nothing more.

The above will cover those migrating to Australia, but we should also legislate to cover those born here

Returning to the question posed by the author, I don't think any amount of feminist rationalising will cover the cracks between feminism and multiculturalism.

There is no middle ground where practices like female genital mutilation and child brides are concerned.

The middle aged men criticised by the author are right, Australia is a secular State and the rule of law is paramount.

Maybe many people wouldn't die in a ditch opposing the wearing of a veil, however the substantial majority of Australians would expect authorities to act against a custom that was at odds with Australian law and especially so where a minor was concerned.

Maybe the article should have posed the question "Multiculturalism and the Law do they mix?"

The point I was making Ena was that people who wear the Hijab have threatened the life of my children by calling for killing of all infidels.

The robes of the Klu Klux Klan have the same significance to black people as the Hijab has for me whenever I see it.

It makes no difference why the Muslims wear it, its still the uniform worn by people who threaten my children and grandchildren and you cannot expect me to feel any liking for it whenever I see it.

Ena,
I also disagree with you that the Jews were slaughtered because it was cultural for the Germans to be anti-Semitic. The Jews were ethnically cleansed because they had built up into a huge tribe and the Germans feared losing control of their country .

All the conflicts you mentioned in your post are not about intolerance they are about territorial control. The anthropologist Margaret Mead last century said all wars are over the land. At least one academic seems to have got it right.

Here is a list
Territorial Dogfight between Arabs and Jews in the middle east.
Territorial fight over control of Iraq between the Sunnis and Shiites
Territorial massacre of Jews by the Germans
Territorial massacre of 1million Muslims by the Turks
Territorial massacre of the Kurds by Suddam Hussein
Territorial massacres by the Japanese in WW11 in the Pacific Islands and territorial massacre of 15million Chinese by the Japanese in the Depression years when they invaded China trying to gain acess to Chinese territorial resources.
Territorial massacre in East Timor by the Idonesians
Bloody territorial fight by the Irish Catholic tribe(IRA) and the British Protestant tribe over control of Ireland
Territorial massacre in Rwanda
Territorial massacre in Bosnia
Territorial massacre in Somalia
Territorial coup in Figi by indigenous group against ruling Indian tribe
Territorial fight by Tamil Tigers
Territorial attack on Chinese in Solomons
The oppression of women was an attempt by males to keep females under territorial control of the males. That’s why they didn’t want to give women the vote. Once women gain equal access to some power and get financial independence they are less able to be kept under male control.
With financial independence women don’t need marriage as much as men do because they always know who their children are. It was an attempt by men to keep control of womens fertility. Males exhibit the same control towards females in the wild for the same reason.

Cornflower

Great post.

it's interesting the very pollies who think we don't need a bill of rights are now the ones who insist all newcomers must accept that ozzies have fundamental (unwritten) rights which must be honoured; even if no one is quite sure what they are.

Dear Grim
a Bill of Rights, would be used just like the "U.N. Charter on Human Rights" is USED by political/social interest groups AGAINST the rights of others.

Nothing quite like a code/law/bill to make people and especially 'interest groups' such as Greens, Democrats and Leftists think "Ah..NOW we have a WEAPON" and the try to use it against others.
The Catch the Fire case was aaaaaa classic.
Key elements were
-Conspiracy between UNequal Opportunity Commission and Islamic Council of Vic.
-Bias in the judgement (or lack of understanding)

Look at how the abovementioned groups seek to use the UN Charter against our interests on assylim seekers to thwart our immigration policy !

So called 'rights' include that to be free of certain cultural traits which are disagreeable or incompatable. Feminists of all people should be at one with socially responsible policy makers on positive selectivity in Immigration.

I call the choice to form immigration and social policy a RIGHT, and it is a right to formulate it in our own interests, not the interests of internationalists or minority ethno/religious groups who do not form part of mainstream cultural Australia.

Dear boaz, if you trouble yourself to read my post a little more carefully, you might note I was not in fact espousing the need for a bill of rights, nor was I advocating a bill of rights.
I merely pointed out that it was interesting...