As usual on Monday, you are invited to post your thoughts on any topic. Civilised discussion and no coarse language, please.
60 thoughts on “Monday message board”
Comments are closed.
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
John Quiggin 
One of the lively stories of the weekend concerned the punishment handed down by a Sydney high school to a female student for “being out of uniform” because she persisted in wearing an item of Islamic religious attire to school. The school has since relented on its stance.
One question which this episode ought to raise, but so far hasn’t if the letters page of the Sydney Morning Herald is any guide, is what education purpose is served by compulsory school uniforms. I am a radical libertarian when it comes to dress codes, and an unrepentant veteran of an unsuccessful campaign, at the age of 16, to persuade my secondary school to become a free dress institution. The “arguments” of uniform advocates leave me completely unmoved after all this time. They seem to consist largely of clucky comments by parents about how “the children look nice in their uniforms” and similar remarks suggesting that parents need the symbolic reassurance, which uniforms provide, that their kids (and their classmates)are under control, as well as rhetorical assertions of the value of uniforms by school principals of the more conservative stripe. However I have yet to see any intellectually rigorous and authoritative studies demonstrating a clear overall *educational* benefit from a compulsory school uniform policy, over and above what might be achieved by other policies of the schools.
I reckon that one of the main benefits of a compulsory school uniform is that it minimises the social stigma attached to not wearing popular brands. Children are pretty vulnerable to peer pressure and frequently suffer low self-esteem – having them all wear identical clothes removes at least one source of needless and hurtful taunting.
I will admit that compulsory uniform rules do not eliminate all differences in dress. Kids are endlessly creative in adding to drab uniforms – caps, earings, necklaces… Then there are weekends and out of school differences in dress. And, there is the issue raised by new as opposed to second-hand uniform. However, all in all compulsory uniform goes some way towards ensuring that kids do not suffer stigma as greatly during school times.
I went to plenty of school as a kid and can cite examples of strict to non-existent school uniform policies. My favourite was the ‘students must wear grey clothing without offensive labels’ dresscode. Local businesses did a roaring trade in grey surfwear and there was stigma attached to wearing plain grey t-shirts rather than grey brandname t-shirts.
New issue:
The whole Corby issue is rediculous. The popular media seem intent on portraying Indonesians as heathen cavemen threatening to kill a pretty white princess. I say, leave the case to the Bali court and subsequent appeals if necessary. Consular assistance should be provided and perhaps a government appeal for clemency down the track. But the attitude of the Australian media is facile and offensive. The worst of it is Channel Nine’s pending ‘Shapelle Corby, the Verdict: You Decide’. By spending a couple of dollars on an SMS you can vote that she is innocent…
The really ugly thing about the Australian response to the Corby case is the desire to collectively punish Indonesians, in particular some of the poorest and most vulnerable Indonesians, for whatever “sins” the court and police are perceived to have committed or to be about to commit.
I have seen signs posted around my neighbourhood (which is just about the most liberal and cosmopolitan neighbourhood in Queensland) proclaiming “Schapelle is innocent! No more tsunami aid!”, and Australian tourism to Bali is reportedly already down by one-third. Some of this may be related to personal security concerns, but there is no doubt an element of reprisal involved.
I don’t profess to know whether Schapelle Corby is innocent. I do know that the Acehnese tsunami survivors and the working people of Bali are innocent.
the most liberal and cosmopolitan neighbourhood in Queensland
*rude southern snigger*
And on another topic, shame the Tahs couldn’t get that fourth try to take out the super 12 minor premiership for the first time. But things are looking good for this week’s semi, regardless of the SA Bulls big score against the SA Stormers. Next week will of course be a different matter. In the meantime, there can be fewer safer bets than that Brendan Cannon will start as hooker this week.
The problem here is that the Indonesian Court system is a joke. The onus is on you to prove your innocence, not for the prosecution to prove your guilt beyond reasonable doubt. I don’t know whether she is guilty or not, but I do know that nobody has proved beyond reasonable doubt that she is guilty. Therefore the Indonesian’s are being punished by our media because it is an easy way to make a buck. But more to the point who would want to go there now that they know if you are accused of something it will be very hard to prove you are innocent. After her speech, which was based entirely on fact a judge said it was based on emotion, not on fact and that she hadn’t proved her innocence.
There is more to someone being guilty of drug smuggling than that they were found with drugs in their luggage. Surely you need to prove a chain of supply or a history of drugs either taking or smuggling, or large debts that needed to be payed. etc… So far they have “drugs found in you unlocked luggage therefore you have been caught red handed”. Their ‘justice’ system is worse than our immigration department, therefore all Indonesians need to be punished as reprisal until they change their medievil ways.
On school uniforms, just send your kid to a good state school, oh wait, you don’t have any of those in NSW.
Who is this Paul Norton bloke?
“I am a radical libertarian when it comes to dress codes, and an unrepentant veteran of an unsuccessful campaign, at the age of 16, to persuade my secondary school to become a free dress institution. ”
And now at the age of 17, he is still bitter to the core. Perhaps you could start a campaign along the lines of the successful ribbon sales (pink for breast cancer, red for aids etc). Thing is though, to make it stand out you need a really big ribbon with perhaps eye catching stripes on it that you can hang around your neck. Sounds like a job for a school tie to me.
Will somebody slap me please but I can’t help myself.
Every time I see this Message Board thing I want to ask “Why would an economist say No Coase language please”
There I’ve got it off my chest. Take that Homer.
Howdo FX, I see yet another challenger failed to snap the chopsticks of an Iron Chef on Saturday in the Crab Battle. I noticed there was a distinct lack of a “no animals were harmed during the filming of…” at the end of the programme.
yeah flutey I only half watched Iron Chef out of the corner of my eye, because my daughter had rung up from Taiwan and also I’m not a shellfish eater. I don’t like it for some reason. Anyway – Chen got a bit of a boost and the KMT a small kick in the vote last week, but a low turnout partly due to heavey rain. It looks like to commos on the mainland failed in wooing the Taiwanese with a panda or two.
Secret ingredient: Panda, that’d be must see teevee.
well done FXH!
I thought the Iron Chef was a bit rusty!
Koala, for that distinctive exotic flavour. Then we can have the book critic saying “the Iron Chef has achieved a sublime combination of Koala, noodles and crab”. No restrictions pursuing culinary perfection…
‘I am a radical libertarian when it comes to dress codes…The “argumentsâ€? of uniform advocates leave me completely unmoved after all this time.’
I can relate to this perfectly, Paul. My high school was the only Catholic school in Brisbane if not the world that didn’t have a uniform. I was very proud on this account , and joined the never-ending battle within the P&C to preserve the status quo. Within a few years of my departure a uniform was introduced. Conformism is a subtle but powerful force in the world.
The only robust argument in favour of uniforms is that they make it easier to identify and prosecute miscreants on buses and trains.
blackened swan
Isn’t the point about school uniforms, especially in state schools, is that the idea is that state schools are secular, ie non-religious. School uniforms also double up on the fact that it reduces the visible differences among students in identifying kids from wealthy families from those from poorer. In the same way, with religious dress. A student attending a state school attends a secular school, and not a religious school.
Am I the only one to wonder why Paul Norton wanted to wear a “free dress” to school? and why is he still bitter about it.
The above comment was from me. It seems GOF’s details appeared automatically in the name and email fields. How can this be? Is it just me? Has this phenomenon been remarked on before?
I only just noticed Flute’s comment on uniforms. But it’s a bit too subtle for me. I gather he’s for them, but I’ll take that as a vote rather than an argument.
I think young Norton may be American, even when their 55 they’ll still put “class president ’75” on their CVs.
I agree completely with Paul Norton on the specific issue of the young lady who wishes to wear what she likes. However, I’d prefer to see a predominantly private school education system to cater to people’s tastes, rather than having to play out the culture wars on public property, and with teenage collateral damage.
If private school attendance was far more widespread (and tax credited), each school could make up its mind about uniforms (or the lack thereof), religion, curriculum, you name it. There would be little need for the dictats Education Department bureaucrats anymore, and I dare say most children would be better off.
I believe this is called “diversity”.
Flutie, Badnarak adds weight to your quip;
“Was elected Executive Vice-President of his dormitory at Indiana University, and became a BMOC (‘big man on campus’) known for getting things done, while always maintaining the high principles instilled by his parents.”
The posting under Guardian of the Faith at 1.05pm wasn’t me.
Benno, it is incorrect to claim that if you were caught with drugs in your possession in Australia you would be innocent until proven guilty. Many states have laws which create an assumption that drugs found in your possession or on your property belong to you. This is rebuttable on the balance of probabilities, but you still have to prove you are innocent.
As to the Indonesian court system being a joke, many legal systems have flaws. Despite the flaws, the trial has given Corby’s defence team every opportunity to demonstrate her innocence. They have failed to do so. The judges in Bali have accepted evidence that would never have been allowed into an Australian trial. For example, the hearsay evidence of a prisoner about a conversation he overheard between two unnamed people about another couple of people who are alleged to have put drugs in the luggage of an unnamed person who he assumed to be Corby. And, a letter about investigations into drug smuggling at domestic airports entered after final submissions. The real failing has been Corby’s defence team. There is every reason to conclude that they are incompetent.
Consider the facts: Corby was caught with drugs in her baggage and then claimed she was innocent. Find me a drug trafficker faced with the death penalty who wouldn’t try the same line. Okay, I admit it… the Bali 9 aren’t claiming that they didn’t do it. Caught with the drugs on their person, they have claimed coercion and/or duress… the next best option!
I have no idea whether Corby is innocent or guilty. Hence I’m willing to leave the matter to a Court which has gone out of its way to hear evidence in her favour. I feel sorry for her, whether or not she ‘did it’, but I feel equally sorry for all Indonesians (and particularly Balinese) who are being tarred with the one brush.
And apart from all this, what the hell is the point of a Channel 9 SMS poll?
From Halsbury’s Laws of Australia, online through the LexisNexisAU database.
[130-11335] Deemed possession In the Northern Territory and Queensland, proof that a dangerous drug was at the material time in or on a place of which the person was:
(1) the occupier; or
(2) concerned in the management or control
is evidence that the drug was then in his or her possession, unless the person shows that he or she neither knew1 nor had reason to suspect that the drug was in or on that place.2
In New South Wales, a prohibited drug or prohibited plant in the order or disposition of a person is deemed to be in his or her possession.3
In Tasmania, a substance or plant is deemed to be in the possession of a person so long as it is:
(1) on any land or premises occupied by him or her;
(2) enjoyed or controlled by him or her in any place; or
(3) in his or her order or disposition,
unless he or she proves that he or she had no knowledge of the substance or plant.4
In Victoria, a substance is deemed to be in the possession of a person so long as it is:
(1) upon any land or premises occupied by him or her; or
(2) used, enjoyed or controlled by him or her in any place,
unless the person satisfies the court otherwise.5
Notes
1 ‘Knowledge’ for this purpose is knowledge of the presence of a substance which is in fact a drug, not knowledge of the nature of the substance: R v Clare [1994] 2 Qd R 619; (1993) 72 A Crim R 357, CA(QLD); Myles (1995) 83 A Crim R 519 at 529 per Pincus JA, CA(QLD).
2 (NT) Misuse of Drugs Act 1990 s 40(c)
(QLD) Drugs Misuse Act 1986 s 57(c) (conclusive evidence; applies in respect of offences in ibid Pt 2). This provision applies only to offences in ibid Pt 2 of which possession is an element, and hence it does not apply to ibid s 8 (unlawfully producing a dangerous drug): R v Sargent [1994] 1 Qd R 655, CA(QLD).
3 (NSW) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 s 7. This provision does not define ‘possession’, but instead extends the common law concept of possession: Dib (1991) 52 A Crim R 64 at 66 per Hunt J (with whom Newman and Abadee JJ agreed), CCA(NSW). Its usual application is in the situation where the prohibited drug or substance is in the physical custody of another person: Dib (1991) 52 A Crim R 64 at 66 per Hunt J.
4 (TAS) Poisons Act 1971 s 3(3).
5 (VIC) Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 s 5. There are no equivalent provisions in the Australian Capital Territory, South Australia and Western Australia.
The paragraph below is current to 07 July 1998
To update legislation see ACL Legislation
“When a choice is required for public high schools, government funding should prioritize vocational education over university preparatory education.”
Agree/disagree, argue.
Who forced this choice Nic? Sounds like a pointless hypothetical high school debate to me.
Re: corby no-one hasbeen able to rationally explain why nyone would take drugs to Bali from Australia.
both geoff Honnor and Ken Parish came up with some explanations however they merely added to the absurdity of the matter.
Depending on the drug you either lose money or don’t make anywhere near a muchas in Australia.
The issue of Islamic religious attire needs to be viewed in the context of the pressure put on young females by their families and their community to conform to medieval standards of dress and behaviour. In the immigrant suburbs of France young women are threatened with violence by men in their suburbs if they do not cover up. In Germany 6 Turkish women have been murdered recently by their families for trying to live western lifestyles. Kids should, at least, be given the opportunity to live freely from religious oppression at school which hopefully will allow them the space to develop sufficiently as independent human beings capable of standing up to familles. It is strange how people who are quick to condemn the likes of George Pell and the newly deceased Pope (generally quite validly) are quick to excuse behaviour which is far worse and condemn attempts by schools or, in the case of France, protect the human rights of kids.
Flute, thats precisely what it is. Friend of mine has to debate it at national level next month. Its a stupid question, but anyway.
“The issue of Islamic religious attire needs to be viewed in the context of the pressure put on young females by their families and their community to conform to medieval standards of dress and behaviour.”
However, I do know a few young Muslim women in Australia that choose to display their faith through attire. In the same vein, I know conservative Christian women that cover their heads with a scarf. So what is the big deal if people choose (and are not pushed) to do this? Should we push people to abandon their beliefs if they happen to attend a secular school?
Michael,
So presumably you beleive that the Muslim students in France who opposed the ban were coerced into it?
How do you feel about the fact that the yarmulka and other Jewish symbols (but not the crucifix) were banned by the same law?
The liberal (notice the small “l”) position on such issues is clear and simple: maximise personal freedom of expression.
That means allowing peopel to dress as they please within certain very minimal standards – including choosing to wear islamic dress.
The liberal position on coercion is equally simple: if it happens its immoral and should be prohibited.
Dressing up illiberal attempts to prohibit the display of symbols of a particular religion or culture in liberal terms doesn;t make them liberal.
Maybe we should ban the Bible in the name of protecting Christians from being identified as such and therefore subjected to discrimination or to protect children in Christian households from religious indoctrination?
Ian Gould, re the French ban on Muslim dress in schools. You state that ‘the liberal (notice the small “l�) position on such issues is clear and simple: maximise personal freedom of expression… The liberal position on coercion is equally simple: if it happens its immoral and should be prohibited.’
This is another typical example of the political correct blinkered and hypocritical; thinking that has made so-called social progressives a laughing stock. There is no absolute right to freedom of expression – we have numerous restrictions on behaviour. In this case, forcing kids to conform to medieval dress and other codes is clearly an appalling violation of human rights – or are you denying that there is a major problem within the Muslim religion in relation to the treatment of women etc.
How one then treats other religions certainly presents a dilemma. However, your analysis is ridiculous (e.g. comments about banning the bible). Christian fundamentalists, for all their faults, do not oppress individuals when they have power anywhere near as much as the far more numerous Islamic extremists do. Bush does not advocate the stoning to death of women, compulsory dress codes, arranged marriages, or prevent his wife or daughters from driving a car, etc.
There are essentially two options. First, make an exception where particularly oppressive rules by particularly oppressive religions are concerned (Islam, Hari Krishnas, etc). I personally do not see anything ethically wrong with this. Extremism is a mainstream phenomenon within Islam (unlike other mainstream religions) and needs to be dealt with. In Western societies we should certainly not tolerate women being treated with the contempt they often are.
The second is to make school a completely secular experience. Again I see nothing particularly ethically challenging in this. I think indoctrinating kids with dangerous nonsense (the existence of a supreme being, the evils of premarital sex, etc.) is an insidious form of child abuse which should not be condoned.
Actually the views I expressed aren’t “politically correct” or “socially progressive”, they’re based on the views of such 18th century thinkers as John Locke.
I don’t deny that “there is a problem with the treatment of women in muslim society”. I simply don’t believe that there is proof that the majority of women in western countries who choose to wear muslim dress are forced to do so.
If you have such proof feel free to present it – otherwise simply admit your fabricating claims to back your prejudices.
My comments about Christianity was a reduction ad absurdem based on your argument.
By the way, who gets to decide which religions are “particularly offensive”?
As a (secular) Jew I have a certain degree of curiosity on that point. Especially since most of the objectionable treatment of women in Islam can be traced directly to Judaism and there are still groups of Jews who dsicriminate quite savagely against women.
I’m sorry but if you want to prescribe the practice of ANY religion – even cults like the Hare Krishna or the Scientologists – you need to present better evidence than “some hypothetical person might coerce some other hypothetical person into that practice”.
Michael Burgess
I’m not sure what banning the hijab has to do with preventing oppression of women by Islam. If it were a burka it would be a different matter. Are you confusing the two? Anwar Ibrahim’s wife wears a hijab – she’s a well educated doctor and a de facto leader of an opposition movement in SE Asia,
Jason,
Why not just accept the fact right now that you are a blinkered, hypocritical laughing stock? It will save you a lot of time.
Bush doesn’t advocate the stoning to death of women
But some of his supporters do.
Ian, you state ‘As a (secular) Jew I have a certain degree of curiosity on that point. Especially since most of the objectionable treatment of women in Islam can be traced directly to Judaism and there are still groups of Jews who discriminate quite savagely against women.’ Firstly this is an interesting twist on the common practice of blaming Jews for most of Islam’s problems. Secondly, it is clearly a dishonest form of argument. Yes, there are extremist Jews but they are very small in number to the number of extremists found in Islam.
Ian re proof. The last figure I saw was that about 50 percent of Muslim teenagers favoured the ban. Given the degree of indoctrination within Muslim communities and degree of violence aimed at those who do not comply with religious doctrine this is a pretty figure. In any case, so called social progressives should be clearly siding with the first group. The fact that they don’t says a good deal about the fact that political correctness, hatred of western societies (by far the more progressive societies on the planet) and hatred of conservative democratic governments (whatever they do) has replaced Marxism as the dominant ideology of so-called social progressives.
If many people contributing to this site relabelled themselves social conservatives and supported all conservative religions equally I would not object to so much. But individuals such as you seem to think that it is ok to criticise Pell, the Pope, American Christian fundamentalists, Howard etc for their undoubted reactionary views but that somehow any criticism of Islam’s far greater sins need to be attacked – bizarre and quite mad. As I have pointed out numerous times before you also ignore the fact that moderate Muslim writers such as Irshad Manji (author of the trouble with Islam) express similar views to myself. In other words, if you are ethnic, a women, a Muslim and hopefully gay (all of which Manji is) we will treat you with great respect whether you talk sense or crap as long as you say what we want you to say – if you don’t (eg don’t spend more time criticising George Bush etc than Islamic extremism) we will ostracise you and listen to more extreme voices. How low the left of politics has sank.
School uniforms is not a libertarian issue inasmuch as school children are not generally adults ie over 18yrs of age. It is a libertarian argument inasmuch as their parents may deserve the right to choose on their behalf. When given the choice (eg private schooling) they predominantly choose a uniform code for their offspring. That choice clearly allows/diasallows religious dress in particular schools and is discriminatory. This discrimination is only a problem for a state system of last resort. Uniforms are largely chosen to prevent competitive dressing by adolescents facing developmental peer pressures, which parents are happy to prevent. Also school uniforms are associated with group identification and pride in a school community, which is seen as an important adult trait later for the broader community benefit.
The libertarian problem of uniforms is really the libertarian problem inherent any large beauracratic state system. One size fits all is always going to be problematic, whether it’s dress codes, beliefs or values.
observa,
The simple answer is to get rid of the large, bureaucratic state system. The rest of it I would agree with, but I would add that they tend to be cheaper than non-uniform systems because they do stop (or at least reduce) the competitive dressing problem.
Gaurdian of the Faith,
“it is incorrect to claim that if you were caught with drugs in your possession in Australia you would be innocent until proven guilty.”
– I never said this, I said caught with drugs in luggage which had been unattended by yourself with ample oppurtunity for hanky panky. Different to in your possession because possession implies full intent, control and willingness. She didn’t have it strapped to herself.
“Many states have laws which create an assumption that drugs found in your possession or on your property belong to you.”
– Not customs, unless it is strapped to your body and we are talking about customs here. The standard question when you are under sucpision is “did you pack your bags yourself” to which you reply “na, it was my cousin pauly I swear”.
“The judges in Bali have accepted evidence that would never have been allowed into an Australian trial. For example, the hearsay evidence of a prisoner about a conversation he overheard between two unnamed people about another couple of people who are alleged to have put drugs in the luggage of an unnamed person who he assumed to be Corby. And, a letter about investigations into drug smuggling at domestic airports entered after final submissions.”
– All of course evidence towards the Indonesian legal system operating like a kangaroo court. Also evidence of her legal team’s complete desperation as the onus is on them to prove her innocence. How exactly do you do that unless you have uncovered everything and basically done the job of the indonesian police which they themselves didn’t do.
I suggest that you listen to the whole 3 minutes of Schapelle Corby’s speech and then see what you think. True there is nothing in it that proves her innocence, but as I have said that is impossible unless you are the indonesian police. But all the information is there to prove that she is not guilty beyond reasonable doubt, there are so many doubts that a similar case in Australia wouldn’t hold up. Thus I will never go to Indonesian ever, unless they change their evil ways.
“And apart from all this, what the hell is the point of a Channel 9 SMS poll?”
To make money from having more viewers. What else does private enterprise, particularly private media enterprise stand for?
As for tsunami aid I wouldn’t be stingy with that, the only thing I would do is launch a travel embargo on Indonesia, there are other countries besides indonesia on my list not to attend of course. Despite your post of our 8 or 9 different laws (this is bloody rediculous that we have different criminal laws all over the place), they allow for the beyond reasonable doubt fact. In this case the police could have, A) tested her body for traces of drugs, B) tested the black plastic bag for her fingerprints and maybe a couple of other things. They chose not to.
In conclusion listened to her speech, it is ripper stuff, it might be found on JJJ website. Good luck, and I don’t hate Indonesians, just don’t want the same to happen to me (that is being stuck in a dodgy court trying to prove my innocence).
gee that was a big post, and it should be ridiculous.
But I totally agree about chanel nine, I am sick of seeing Corby’s tearful face in my web browser, it is there about 40% of the time nowadays.
Oh and as this is the moday message board.
Amanda get of your high horse, what Tony said is a fair comment and not indicative of anything but the feelings that your incompetant department ignites. Forget the credibility of the ABC which is probably Australia’s most credible institution and focus on your government’s credibilty. “Oh I am offended when someone says it like it is with a mild metaphor”. Not fit for public office, a disgrace to competent people around the world.
Interesting. I posted a response to Paul Norton’s comments on school uniforms, and it has disappeared.
Possibly it was considered spam and eaten up, this happened to me a while ago. But now I must be leet.
Steve, your comment went into moderation and has now been approved, along with one by Michael Burgess.
Please don’t tell JF Beck about this! He’s convinced my anti-spam software is plotting against him.
If anyone has been receiving lots of German-language email and emails about the bombing of Dresden and the Armenian Genocide, it’s part of a SPAM campaign by German neo-Nazis. The full story is in this morning’s edition of Australian (Tuesday 17 May).
Michael,
If, as you claim, there’s a massive degree of violence and intimidation towards girls in muslim communities in the west, then surely the answer is to address that underlying problem not to remove one aspect of it by banning religious dress in some circumtances.
Or are you arguing that violence and intimidation are acceptable if only practiced on the week-ends?
Maybe you’d like to ban certain styles of dress entirely?
“If many people contributing to this site relabelled themselves social conservatives and supported all conservative religions equally I would not object to so much. But individuals such as you seem to think that it is ok to criticise Pell, the Pope, American Christian fundamentalists, Howard etc for their undoubted reactionary views but that somehow any criticism of Islam’s far greater sins need to be attacked”
The problem, michael is that you seem incapable of accepting that there are muslims who aren’t EEEVIL.
I know highly educated, westernised Malay and Indonesian women who regard the head-dress as a symbol of their ethnicity and culture with little or no religious signifcance and wear it as a matter of pride.
Too bad you think you have the right to decide whether their daughters should be able to do likewise.
Ian you state that I am ‘incapable of accepting that there are Muslims who aren’t EEEVIL.’ This is a typical tactic by political correct twerps who try to suppress debate by labelling as racist anyone who criticises their views. It also fails the most basic factual test given that I quoted Irshad Manji in my post and elsewhere have sang the praises of Hirshi Ali and other Muslim moderates (every read their writings). I also suggested that anyone who wears mediaeval dress is indoctrinated not evil. As for ‘Malay women and Indonesian women who regard the head-dress as a symbol of their ethnicity and culture’ give me a break. I have also met and read comments by Catholics and other whom have been sexually abused by priests and think that somehow they are to blame for this. People while in cults (and I personally don’t see that much difference between cults and fundamentalists versions of mainstream religion) frequently sing their praises while in them but when they have left tell a completely different story.
The different between me and you Ian is that I listen to what real Muslim moderates are saying while you side with those who present extremist views. So please, let’s have no more pretence about you being a small-l liberal or social progressive. Your values are clearly changeable depending on the circumstances.
About that email spam campaign, Paul:
http://www.gravett.org/steve/archives/006594.html
Benno,
Thanks for the correction on ‘ridiculous’. I must have been making that mistake for my entire life……
I just want to pick up on one thing. You wrote, “…possession implies full intent, control and willingness”. If you read the various state laws it is sufficient to have drugs on/in property belonging to you. This covers drugs in a house you own. It also covers drugs in a bag you own. Possession is assumed and must be rebutted (ie. you have to prove your innocence). I’m not sure how state laws interact with customs laws, so I’ll have to defer to you on that one.
Can any tell me whether Corby has to prove her innocence to the criminal or civil standard?
Just a brief comment on the exchange between Michael and Ian, also picking up on a point raised by Observa. I think it is wrong for parents or other family members to attempt to dictate to young people of school age what they should wear once the young people are competent to make such judgements for themselves (which, Observa, I would argue that they are well before they turn 18). Thus I share Michael’s objection to attempts to coerce young women (or men) of Islamic (or any other) faith to wear religious attire.
That said, if young people of school age freely choose to wear an item of religious attire or ornamentation to school – whether crucifixes, yarmulkas or Islamic attire – they should be able to do so provided that basic norms of decency are not infringed.
My attitude towards women *voluntarily* wearing Islamic head scarves in environments where they don’t have to is much the same as my attitude towards women *voluntarily* wearing skirts, stockings, high heels and make-up in such environments – it’s not my place to pass judgement. However, it must be said that the latter combinations of attire, which many western (usually Christian) women feel that they must wear in certain contexts even when there is no requirement that they do so, are considerably more restrictive and uncomfortable than Islamic headscarves, and would therefore seem to require considerably more “indoctrination” (to use Michael’s words) to be willing to wear voluntarily.