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.