First read http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/16311.htm

Some friends responded (arranged in order and anonymously):

* Your letter sounds exactly like the letters that appear in American newspapers from the "America. Love it or leave it", the neo-Nazis, and the White supremacists. (And does "In God we Trust really appear in the money in Oz?)

Would Jesus Christ be welcome in "your" country, or Paul, or any of the other Apsotles?

What country are YOU or your "parents" from, if you really are living in Australia? Becuase if you are White, "you" did come from someplace else..... Perhaps you should ask the people who were living in the land before "you" how they feel about your presence and your trashing of their culture.

And finally, I assume you own a Bible, let me invite you to read it, esp. what it has to say about how to treat the "alien" and the "stranger in your midst"....

* Dead right. Developed over two centuries. So we ourselves are recent (in terms of older cultures) immigrants, and it behoves us to remember that and not be so damn arrogant about our own culture!

* I have seen something like this floating around cyber space before, so it is not new.

I would certainly want to raise some questions about some of the things that are quoted as fact;

"After Sydney not wanting to offend other cultures by putting up Xmas lights."

I'm not sure where this has come from.

I also suspect there might be more behind the Muslim woman's story if it is even true.

Maybe I've missed something, but is "In God we Trust" Australia's motto? I thought that was America's motto but then again I guess we are the 51st state now so I suppose we have to adopt their motto as well.

If we are to be true to the principles applied here, then surely we all should be living like the Aboriginals lived when our ancestors invaded the place.

Oh well! I guess we do live in a country of diversity but fundamentalists are not only religious people.

* The claim that Australia's motto is, "In God We Trust", is false. See here: http://www.dfat.gov.au/facts/coat_of_arms.html "In God We Trust" is a U.S. theme.

Except for this error, I think the writer expresses the feelings of many Australians. Multiculturalism was chugging along very nicely until the migration of Muslims in significant numbers. Something about the Muslim religio-cultural stance has challenged the acceptance of multiculturalism.

I also think the writer has a point. If it is true that a Muslim woman was permitted to have her face covered for a driver's license photo, then things have become absurd. A driver's license photo is there to establish identity!

Maybe it is time to re-examine the concept of multiculturalism and be a little less naive about the relationship between religion, culture, community values and migration. It is quite obvious that pulling the strings of migration in certain ways could change the cultural values of Australia. Given enough Muslim migration, wearing a Muslim-style head covering could change from being a right to being an obligation.

* You're quite right - it is America's motto. So either the person who wrote the original piece was mistaken, or the entire thing was lifted bodiy from something writtne by an American and adapted without changing the motto section.

According to the DFAT website, "Australia has never adopted any official motto or faunal or bird emblem... For many years, the motto 'Advance Australia' appeared on unofficial Coats of Arms, even before the Federation of the States in 1901. It was included in the 1908 Arms, and was popularly accepted in association with the 19th century song 'Advance Australia Fair'."

* == A driver's license photo is there to establish identity!

Yes, but doesn't that mean that the photo should be taken of that person as they normally look? And isn't that - for a Muslim woman - with their head covering? I can't imagine any shopkeeper, for instance, insisting that she remove the covering so s/he can check her identity. Perhaps a compromise would be for two photos to be taken, and for police to have a record of the uncovered-face photo, should it be required, but for the covered photo to be on the licence.

If anyone's ever been to a masked ball, or played the game where everyone masks up and you have to guess who's who, you'll know just how much difference covering half the face can make, even with people you know well.

== Maybe it is time to re-examine the concept of multiculturalism and be a little less naive about the relationship between religion, culture, community values and migration. It is quite obvious that pulling the strings of migration in certain ways could change the cultural values of Australia. Given enough Muslim migration, wearing a Muslim-style head covering could change from being a right to being an obligation.

In fact, let's go back to a White Australia policy? Out of fear, of course, even if we won't admit it.

* You can't be serious about the practicality of this. The fact is, the Quran doesn't even require that women cover their faces. It only recommends that women use their head scarf to cover their breasts. In what must be a prima facie case of bad exegesis, Muslim scholars have turned the method by which this was easily done in ancient Arabic society into the endorsement of that ancient dress as a religious requirement.

== In fact, let's go back to a White Australia policy? Out of fear, of course, even if we won't admit it.

I'd suggest we think about what core Australian values are and base migration on those willing to accept those values. This should not be a matter of skin colour.

* What I *am* serious about is that no matter whether the practice is cultural, religious, patriarchal or a mixture of all those, no person outside that system has a right to insist that someone violate their belief/culture in order to fit in.

* == What I *am* serious about is that no matter whether the practice is cultural, religious, patriarchal or a mixture of all those, no person outside that system has a right to insist that someone violate their belief/culture in order to fit in.

Think about that claim next time you hear that someone's daughter has been the subject of an honour killing.

* == "How on earth can a police officer establish that a driver is the person named on the licence if the licence photo is of someone in a birkah?"

This is precisely the point. It is not discriminatory for government to require that every citizen who wants a driver's licence be photographed, as this is the best way of ensuring that the licence belongs to the actual driver. If you don't want to be identified, then you should not expect a driver's licence. Human Rights instruments recognise the need for ordinary laws for good government of a nation - to use claims of discrimination as a way of avoiding a normal, reasonable responsibility (such as to be clearly identifiable as the holder of the driver's licence) is a misuse of anti-discrimination law and human rights. And it is inappropriate for government to accede to such requests, because government ends up treating people differently, on the basis of religion, in circumstances where they ought to treat everyone the same, to safeguard everyone. Having a driver's licence is not a human right - governments are entitled to impose conditions before people are allowed to be in charge of the lethal weapon known as a motor vehicle in public places.

* I agree with all that. Perhaps he didn't understand that I was "playing devil's advocate" to some extent. I just wonder how a police officer can establish the identity of someone in a birkah (say at an RBT), if they don't request the removal of it. Even more, those with less authority than police officers, who also use drivers licences as forms of identity. Would they request the removal? I wonder. And if they did, and caused Muslim outrage at the violation of their women, what would our attitude be then? Where do we draw the line between cultural sensitivity and our own expectations?

Just questions, as we formulate the boundary between multiculturalism and cultural integrity.

* I'm sure that neither [ofthe previous posters] are too young to remember the days before photo licences. So there are other ways of establishing identity.

And as I understand it, a muslim woman would probably be ok to remove her birkah for identification in the presence of female officers, and as showing her unveiled photo to a male oficer would be a problem, perhaps there is a way of avoiding that as well. So the problem is not intractible, just requires a practical solution. The solution may meet the legal requirements without offending the individual, a win-win situation, until a shock-jock misrepresents the story to play on public xenophobia.

* Those were the days when people were able to use somebody else's licence. That's why photo licences were introduced.

...What you have suggested is not a practical solution. Our police service has enough trouble providing the presence of one police officer, let alone a male and a female officer for every occasion. Next we would have Muslim police officers refusing to have mixed sexes in one police car. And so it goes on into absurd impracticality. Or perhaps into the practice in many Muslim countries where women are effectively not permitted to drive.

* That is a very misleading statement. The police had to use other strategies which could be more time-consuming. But it is crazy to suggest that it was a free-for-all. Or indeed that photo licences are an infallible means of identification.

== And as I understand it, a Muslim woman would probably be ok to remove her birkah for identification in the presence of female officers, and as showing her unveiled photo to a male oficer would be a problem, perhaps there is a way of avoiding that as well.

== What you have suggested is not a practical solution. Our police service has enough trouble providing the presence of one police officer, let alone a male and a female officer for every occasion. Next we would have Muslim police officers refusing to have mixed sexes in one police car. And so it goes on into absurd impracticality. Or perhaps into the practice in many Muslim countries where women are effectively not permitted to drive.

All that you have demonstrated is an unreasonable attitude, and it is difficult to see what you are actually arguing for ... that Muslim women who want to wear the birkah should go back "where they came from" so that they can be denied the right to drive????? That they should be effectively denied the right to drivr in Australia???? Or discard the birkah, get over it, and be like "us"?????

To be frank, your earlier comments about people changing their attitude to multiculturalism in Australia based on events in Bali, don't make much sense either. If that is happening, I argue that it has more to do with govt and media attitudes back here.

I was trying to show that with a reasonable attitude and a bit of commonsense, most problems can be resolved. The only times I can remember being asked to show my licence to the police is when I have broken the law, or at RBT. In the former case, it would not be unreasonable to ask me to return to the nearest station to confirm my identity. In the latter case, there are often two or more officers present anyway, so having a female officer on scene is not such a big deal.

Your statement "Next we would have ..." is nothing but a rant, and very typical of the style of anti-multiculturalism.

* On the contrary, I don't think it is reasonable for you to be suggesting an increased deployment of police personnel simply to cater for an imported culture. Our own local police station is often not manned at all; as the regional police command believe it is more efficient to have police officers roaming in cars. Identity must be established on the spot.

Identity fraud is a major issue in many crimes today. So identity certification plays a very important role. It concerns not only the RTA (who no longer accept wedding certificates (Form 15) as proof of identity), but also banks when opening accounts. There are numerous jobs where photo identification is required, such as hospitals, and these become the means to establishing the bona fide nature of persons attending patients, and give recourse in the event of malpractice.

== To be frank, your earlier comments about people changing their attitude to multiculturalism in Australia based on events in Bali, don't make much sense either. If that is happening, I argue that it has more to do with govt and media attitudes back here.

Let me spell it out. Where a religion/culture sets its face against another and sees migration as a way to launch a beachhead against that other culture, including acts of terrorism, then people are apt to reconsider permitting immigration from that culture. I don't think it is necessary to demonise the media in order to attribute a reaction from the population in general. Only a certain proportion of immigrants from that religion/culture will see their immigration in this way, so the difficulty is in knowing who's who. While I don't personally support the stance, I can understand that many people conclude that *any* migration from that particular religion/culture is consequently too risky. Personal encounter with the acts of terrorism of such cultures quickly evaporates the dross of woolly-headed idealism.

* This is a highly inflammatory statement and you don't provide any basis for it.

== Personal encounter with the acts of terrorism of such cultures

Acts of terrorism are not perpetrated by "cultures" but by individuals and (usually small) groups. It is a racist stereotype to suggest that a culture is responsible for terrorism, and by inference that other cultures are free of it.

* == Identity fraud is a major issue in many crimes today. So identity certification plays a very important role. It concerns not only the RTA (who no longer accept wedding certificates (Form 15) as proof of identity),

They still accept official BMD marriage certificates - just not the church-based certificate. Seems fair to me - that's more about no longer blindly trusting the church than about photo ID.

== I don't think it is necessary to demonise the media in order to attribute a reaction from the population in general.

I really don't understand your attitude towards the media, Greg. Sometimes you use it to justify your stance, sometimes you argue people *can't* use it to justify their stance, sometimes you quote it as an authority, and sometimes you claim that the media is simply out to swing the perception of the population. ISTM that you cite it when it suits you, and discount it when it suits people arguing something you disagree with.

== Personal encounter with the acts of terrorism of such cultures quickly evaporates the dross of woolly-headed idealism.

I wish people understood that as justification for clergy abuse victims losing their faith!

* It seems that others have shown it is not worth worrying about the original writer as they are writing for a USA situation. However what about your friend?

Just a couple of comments:

Regarding Christmas - I have quotes from the WA Buddhist leader and the WA Ethnic Communities council encouraging the celebration of Christmas with all its Christian symbolism. Their argument is that it is a good message/story for our society and worth celebrating. I believe some of the anti-christmas/christian stuff of recent years is more to do with fundamentalist secularists not people of non-christian religions. It is a bit like dealing with issues that affect Aboriginal people, because of our immature relationship people are too scared of offending and so they avoid lots of things whereas if they actually learnt more about the different 'other' they might actually find more in common and agreement on lots of things.

Regarding speaking English - "WE" (Australians who have seen later immigrants turn up) also speak Djambarrpuyngu, Gupupuyngu, Galpu, Maung, Iwaja, Pitjantjatjara, Burarra, Worrorra, Ngarinyin, Wunambal, Mirriwung, Bunaba, Nyikina, Mangala, Walmatjarri, Jaru, Gidja, Bardi ... just to name a few of the languages from a small fraction of this country. By all means "if you wish to become part of our society, learn the language!".

And... yes (harking back to Aboriginal spirituality) God is part of the culture of this land. It is not so much about asking whether "God offends you" (the later comer) but rather stating the plane fact that you (the later comer) have offended God who is the creator spirit of this land. You have not treated this land with respect, you have desecrated sacred places and have (and continue to this day) destroyed many of the people of this land, you are not listening to the law laid down by the Creator Spirit of respect, relationship and responsibility. The Creator Spirit is crying because of the suffering of the land and its people. If you find this God or the culture of this land offensive then you have the right to leave. If you want to stay here then stop your "complaining, whining, and griping" and get to know properly this COUNTRY, this LAND, and the SPIRIT of this land. The first step is to shut your mouth and start listening with your whole body, not just your ears.

I hope this helps your friend because it certainly helped me to write it!!

* == They still accept official BMD marriage certificates - just not the church-based certificate. Seems fair to me - that's more about no longer blindly trusting the church than about photo ID.

I am at a loss to understand your logic in this statement. The official certificate issued by Principal Registrar is issued on the basis of the certification sent to them by the religious celebrant. When the RTA rejected Form 15, the Principal Registrar did not issue numbered copies of Form 15 which were copy resistant. There has never been any suggestion that the problem has been a matter of "trusting the church", and it would not make sense to claim such, given the current system depends on trusting the religious celebrant in the first place.

== I really don't understand your attitude towards the media, Greg. Sometimes you use it to justify your stance, sometimes you argue people *can't* use it to justify their stance, sometimes you quote it as an authority, and sometimes you claim that the media is simply out to swing the perception of the population. ISTM that you cite it when it suits you, and discount it when it suits people arguing something you disagree with.

It's about being discerning and not making blanket statements about the media. It's about examining every case on its merits.

* I am too young to remember the days before photo licenses so I find it hard to imagine what it would be like without them, but ISTM that it would make life a lot more difficult for the majority of people, especially police officers. I guess it won't matter once we move to iris scanning, but then I'm sure there'll be some religion or sect that objects to having an imagine of their eye taken.

== I was trying to show that with a reasonable attitude and a bit of commonsense, most problems can be resolved.

That's great, but you're never going to be able to please everyone so you have to come up with a system that works well for the majority of people. If you start making allowances for every little religious or cultural claim then things would soon get out of hand and you'll have police complaining that they're being discriminated against because they can't exercise their belief in a justice system that treats everyone equally.

How do you coexist with people who's beliefs conflict with yours? Tolerance and patience can go a long way, but what if being tolerant is causing you to go against your beliefs? You have to make a choice. Are my beliefs more important than theirs? Either you choose yes, and you are discriminatory again them, or you choose no, and they are discriminatory against you. There's no way to win. The best you can hope for is a compromise where both parties end up having to accept something against their beliefs. Or is that the best you can hope for? What if there's 10 times more people in group A than group B? Or 1000 times more? Should one groups beliefs become more important than the others?

== In the latter case, there are often two or more officers present anyway, so having a female officer on scene is not such a big deal.

You might be right in a city, but what about in one cop town? I agree it's probably a good idea to have at least one male and female officer together, but it's not always going to be possible, and shouldn't be a reason they can't perform their duties.

* Having been away at the weekend I only read this this morning, and was going to ignore it, but am finding that difficult. First, the intro needs correcting, as the "Xmas lights in Sydney" comment is a year out-of-date. I think that discussion is over, and as someone said, it's usually the secular fundamentalists that want to dilute Christmas. If people of other religions are offended at all, they're rarely Muslim, as implied.

I find the SA decision ridiculous: did it really happen, or is it an urban myth? I can't imagine anyone driving in a burqa - it's dangerous enough to be a pedestrian in a burqa. If it was merely a veil, then someone [Greg?] rightly pointed out that women in Saudi Arabia, where the veil is mandated, aren't allowed to drive anyway. So, if anyone is trying to insist on that in Australia, I would guess that it's someone rather new to that level of hijab.

If you wait in queues at post-offices you would know that women may wear hijab for passport photos, but not if it obscures facial features. I can't imagine any woman would insist on covering her face if it meant she couldn't procure a passport.

Having said that, I find the newspaper article obnoxious. I think it comes at least in part from the U.S. Not just because of the motto, but also because of the languages mentioned [or not], and the order [with Spanish heading the list].

But as it's been directed at an Australian readership by some plagiarising and incredibly ignorant "Australian citizen" I'll continue... "Because God is part of our culture" is a weird statement in the Australian context, a different slant on "the pot calling the kettle black" perhaps.

The hatred and vitriol in this article serves no good purpose. The fear and mentality evident here can only undermine our reasonably successful multiculturalism, and incite a backlash as seen recently in France.

Our nation has been cross-cultural in varying degees from its conception. While we need to be alert to Islamist extremism, we should be engaging in dialogue and coming down hard on this sort of tripe!

November 2005