Yes, Is Mise. I know that Sikhs are 'traditionally' pandered to. Doesn't make it right or desirable. Host countries spend too much time on catering to the values and practices of immigrants rather than on their own values and practices. If Sikhs don't like school uniforms, they should start their own schools or find a school that doesn't insist on uniform. Thinking that they can come here and carry on as though they were still in the Punjab is arrogant and insulting to Australia.

Australia is often described as a succefful
multicultural society. And it is, in the sense
that people from all different backgrounds live
together in harmony. But there is a predominant
culture just as there is a predominant language.
And the political and cultural institutions that
govern Australia are absolutely critical to that
attitude of harmony and tolerance.

Within the institutional framework that preserves
tolerance and protects order we can celebrate and
enjoy diversity, but we could not do that without
the framework which guarantees this freedom for
everyone. That's why the Australian Citizenship
Oath or Affirmation is so essential to capture the
essence of what it means to be Australian.

ttbn,

It's not that the Sikhs object to the school uniform, they simply wish to wear the turban with the uniform and it's not pandering but simply allowing a people who have always been allied to us to keep some of their traditions alive in this country as we have always allowed.

They do not represent a militant threat to our way of life, 99.99% are model citizens.

Dear Foxy,

«But we could not do that without the framework which guarantees the freedom to enjoy diversity.»

There you say it all, using the words 'THE framework'.
The word 'the', implies as if there are no other possible frameworks that can achieve the freedom to enjoy diversity.

Well, your legal system is NOT the only possible framework to achieve freedom and diversity. In fact, it is quite a violent method to achieve the given result (which we both want) where alternative non-violent methods are available just the same.

«Therefore we have laws that we are all expected to abide by.»

Do you notice how you resort to threatening?

«If you can't accept that then you don't accept the fundamentals of what Australia is and what it stands for.»

If the fundamentals of what Australia is and what it stands for are the use of threats and violence, then no decent person should accept them.

«Therefore, we are asking all our citizens to subscribe to a framework that can protect the rights and liberties of all.»

Yes, you ask them to subscribe to a violent framework, then you expect violence to protect liberties... what a joke!

«These are Australian values.»

I understand that these are the values of Australian politicians, but I hope that most ordinary Australians do not share such terrible values.

«We expect all those who call themselves Australians to subscribe to them.»

So you would like good people to subscribe to violence? This will not happen and if what it takes to be called "Australian" is to become a bully and persecute helpless and innocent others, then it is far better not to call oneself "Australian".

Dear Yuyutsu,

I'm not going to argue with you. All developed
countries have laws that people are required to
obey. Laws that are passed by their legislatures.
Why stop at a red light? Why have a license for
driving a car? Why can't you poop in the street?
Why can't you wonder around naked? And so on.
Stop trying to make something out of what's being
said here. You're intelligent enough to know -
what is being talked about here - don't try to
divert things.

Cheers.

Foxy,

You are right. Most would agree with you. Can't win 'em all, though; some people prefer to live in a bubble.