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.