I have reread the post a few times at this stage and have yet to find any area where John was advocating special privileges for any one, either majorities or minorities. You seem to be the only one doing that.

I am not aware of any restrictions on clothing in this country, the burkha has not been banned, nor as far as I am aware is there any move to do so. If there are any rules against minority group behavior, it is because there are too many rules governing too many aspects of everyones behavior. The answer to these conflicts is to repeal such laws, not to grant privilege to minorities.

Some cultural behaviors will of course not be accepted here, but unless you are advocating clitorectomies, honor killings, or whipping immodestly dressed women, it is really difficult to see what you are on about.

I’m not especially convinced by it — but I’ve forgotten what the arguments for and against it were in contentious cases (and non-contenious ones for that matter, like access to race-specific medical problems) and who makes them (I’m sure they apply here). It’s worthwhile noting that the asymmetry problem is evident in this statement:

“The idea that an ethnic or religious group that is in the majority has less rights than those in the minority is nonsensical”

But so why is the opposite true? At least in terms of behavior restrictions, it tends to be the case that minority group behavior is restricted more than majority group behavior. So if that’s the case, how does one stop the asymmetry? Or do minority groups simply have to put up with asymmetrical levels oppression?

Jim — if those extremists is Israel own the street, then I think they should have the right to control access, using any criteria they like.

I agree with DavidLs distinction, though I don’t think it’s a distinction between “liberal” and “libertarian”, but instead a distinction between “political philosophy” (the role of government) and “moral philosophy” (how we should live). I interpret DavidL to be saying that he is both a political liberal (libertarian) and also a moral liberal (in his life he prefers tolerance & diversity). I am the same.

Don’t swallow that kool aid Conrad, i’ve seen this hog wash in America and Europe generally coming from the left wing tinfoil hat wearing moonbats. The idea that an ethnic or religious group that is in the majority has less rights than those in the minority is nonsensical and has no place in a free society. There can be no justification for any group in society to have special privileges.

The desire to form a Muslim ghetto and restrict outside influence is a sign that those who pursue the more oppressive aspects of Islam believe are losing the battle of ideas and wish to restrict their people especially youth from the polluting values of western liberty. Any wish by white supremacists to keep other cultures out of their areas is a corollary to this, they wouldn’t want their children exposed to all of those nasty ideas of tolerance to others until they have been properly ‘educated’ against them.

The idea of no go areas is not on, but if groups wish to live together there is no problem. Some time ago in Israel some of the more extreme religious elements wanted to restrict access to the streets in areas where they lived on the sabbath.

As they constitute a minority, should it be argued that they had a right to do so?

Of course, if everybody living there has a particular characteristic, someone without it wouldn’t ‘fit’, wouldn’t feel comfortable. But I don’t see how the transaction could be prevented from happening.

Australia’s early exposure to muslims was totally benign, with Afghan camel traders and post-war Turkish immigrants integrating harmoniously.

It’s only the more recent affinity of some muslims for separateness, oppression of women, hostility to freedom and democracy and, for a few, terrorism, that has altered the liberal perspective. Experience, which I concede is not infallible, suggests a muslim-only housing estate would seek to adopt some or all of those values. It’s that, rather than being muslim per se, that conflicts with liberal values.

i’m not speaking for you. it’s my observations.

having lived in all three cities for a decent length of time, David.

This post raises a very tough issue. There is not a black and white answer. If Muslims want to build a community principally for Muslims, then i can understand their reasonings. However, to reject a prospective home buyer becuase they dont share the same majority faith of the local community, seems to open a can of worms. White supremacists would then understandably demand whites-only areas, ethnic Chinese would do the same, and before you know it, your community is completely atomised.