"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?